Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the PIL-petitioners, suggested that it can be produced in a sealed cover.
However, the ASG said that he had only been briefed on the point that the governments may challenge this order and, therefore, would need further instructions to give a concrete answer.
Pertinently, the Court also took strong objection to what it considered as delay tactics by the convicts after counsel for one of the convicts sought more time to file his counter-affidavit.
“We are also conscious of the strategy that the matter may be dragged to at least December by the accused. They will say not served and seek 4 weeks, next hearing another accused will say,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The counsel then pointed out that notice was only issued on March 27, and less than a month had passed even as the matter dealt with their liberties.
Source: Barandbench
