Bombay HC seeks Hany Babu Tharayil’s health report by June 14 – Times of India

MUMBAI: Bombay high court on Thursday called for a health update by June 14 from specialist doctors on Professor Hany Babu Tharayil’s condition. The HC continued his hospitalisation and granted his wife, mother and daughter permission to visit him at Breach Candy Hospital. The hospital in a report said Babu was ready for discharge. But the HC said he required further examination on how he could be cared for while convalescing.
Babu’s counsel Yug Chaudhary said if the hospital was discharging him, he may be sent to ‘house arrest’ and not to jail where conditions are not conducive since the discharge report mentions swelling in his optical nerves. “We cannot agree for a house arrest unless we hear the matter fully on merit,” said the vacation bench of Justices S S Shinde and Abhay Ahuja, adjourning the matter, after National Investigation Agency (NIA) counsel Sandesh Patil opposed the ‘house arrest’ plea. The HC will on June 15 hear Babu’s plea for ‘house arrest’ over judicial custody.
The bench took all present at the virtual hearing by surprise when mid- hearing it referred to a recent article penned by an advocate, an associate of Babu’s counsel Yug Chaudhary, in a matter of another co-accused Fr Stan Swamy’s bail plea. “If your associate or you feel that by writing articles in the newspapers, when you are appearing in the matters, that you will succeed, then it is your choice,” the judges said.
“Unless you have faith in the system, how will you assist us…We are the last to say there should be some restriction of freedom of expression but an advocate arguing before us should have faith in us,’’ the judges remarked. “We are not party to the earlier bench order (referred to in the article). We do not think it is ethical or professional in identical matters (to write) …that is not acceptable.”
Chaudhary said, “I hope your lordships are not saying that your lordships cannot be criticised for actions your lordships take.” He said that he had not written anything about the cases he appears in and, if he does, he can be “rightly rebuked”.
He added he had a right to write and also be heard and would continue to practice both. The HC said it only wished to convey congenially that “advocates arguing before us must have faith in us, in the system.’’ Chaudhary said he had great faith and that is why he was before the court.