- (1.) The grievance of the learned Attorney General that the learned Advocate-on-record, Miss Rani Jethmalani, should not have addressed letters to him in regard to matters arising out of this habeas corpus petition is legitimate. Indeed, by her letter dated November 26, 1984, she asked for a reply by the same evening. If any advocate-on-record has anything to ask or convey about any matter, particularly about the modalities of implementing any order passed by this Court, that should be done by corresponding with his or her counterpart, the advocate-on-record for the other side.
(2.) The aforesaid letters display a sense of great urgency in regard to the subject-matter of the Crl. Misc. Petition but a learned Advocate, deputising for Miss Jethmalani, asked today that the petition, which concerns the demand of the detenue that his advocate and his friends should be allowed to have an interview with him, should be adjourned for three weeks. It was stated by the Advocate that, in the meanwhile, the request made in the Crl. Misc. Petition should be treated as not pressed and may not be considered now.
(3.) We adjourn the Crl. Misc. Petition to January 15, 1985, along with the main habeas corpus petition, on the ground stated by the learned advocate, namely, that Shri Ram Jethmalani is busy in his election campaign and is not available in Delhi to argue these matters now.;