Umar Khalid, Anirban granted six-month interim bail

March 18, 2016

New Delhi, Mar 18: JNU students Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, arrested in a sedition case almost a month ago, were today granted interim bail for six months by a Delhi court.

Additional Sessions Judge Reetesh Singh granted the relief to the two accused on furnishing of a personal bond of Rs 25,000 each with one surety of the like amount.

"I am granting them interim bail for six months," the judge said, adding that the duo will not leave the country without its prior permission.

Umar and Anirban, who are lodged in jail since February 23, had sought bail on the ground of parity with JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar, saying he has already been granted bail and the incident did not attract charges of sedition.

The two had surrendered to the police on the intervening night of February 23-24. Kanhaiya was granted interim bail for six months by a Delhi High Court on March 2.

The court order came on the bail pleas in a sedition case which were earlier opposed by the police on the ground that allegations were grave as they were the main organisers of the campus event in which alleged anti-national slogans were raised.

The police had arrested Umar and Anirban for allegedly organising the controversial event at JNU on February 9.

The duo had returned to the JNU campus on February 21 after going missing since February 12.

Delhi Police had issued a look-out notice on February 20 against Umar, Anirban and three other students -- Rama Naga, Ashutosh Kumar and Anant Prakash.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments