The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on July 31 a plea moved by a Hyderabad University professor and academic, Kham Khan Suan Hausing, to quash the summons issued and criminal proceedings initiated against him by a Manipur court shortly after his interview to a news portal.
Appearing before Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, senior advocate Anand Grover and advocates Anju Thomas and Aastha Sharma sought an urgent listing of their plea to protect the personal liberty of the professor, who heads the Political Science department at the varsity and is considered an expert in northeastern States. They said the petition, which was originally listed before the Chief Justice of India’s court on July 28, could not be heard as the CJI was indisposed and did not hold court.
The petition said the Imphal East Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) had summoned Mr. Hausing to appear before his court on July 28 from Hyderabad. Mr. Hausing is accused of offences including promoting enmity, making false declarations, outraging religious feelings, among others, under the Indian Penal Code.
The petition said Mr. Hausing had not received copies of the complaint against him, the court order, trial court records, including statements of the complainant and witnesses.
It said the summons was issued despite the communal tension and disturbance in Manipur.
“Amidst the communal tension of the two communities, there is threat to his life and liberty… He is apprehensive that there is a real and imminent threat to his life if he travels to Manipur to answer the summons,” Mr. Hausing pleaded.
He narrated that on July 6, he was shocked to read on social media that an FIR has been registered against him on the basis of the media interview, pursuant to which the CJM, Imphal East, issued summons.
He said the Manipur court order which he had chanced upon in the social media was “incomplete”.
“The petitioner wrote to the authorities to supply the complaint/FIR, summons and trial record of the criminal complaint, but nothing has been forthcoming,” the petition said.
The professor has also urged the apex court to protect him from the baseless allegation that he is not a citizen of India.
“The allegation is ex-facie malicious as the petitioner was born on March 27, 1978, within the Indian demography and is entitled to citizenship by birth under Article 5(a) of the Constitution,” the petition clarified.
