Court asks police to explain imposition of prohibitory order
New Delhi, Mar 30, 2013: A Delhi court on Saturday asked Delhi Police to explain the circumstances that forced it to clamp prohibitory order which was allegedly violated by Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party
New Delhi, Mar 30, 2013: A Delhi court on Saturday asked Delhi Police to explain the circumstances that forced it to clamp prohibitory order which was allegedly violated by Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party members during their protest last year and further investigate the three cases against them.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgement which was critical of midnight crackdown on supporters of Yoga Guru Ramdev at Ramlila Maidan, the Delhi court said the issue relates to the “duty of the state to maintain law and order and the right of the citizens to move freely within the territory of India and their rights to express themselves by protesting against the government” and asked the police to file a report within two months.
“In my view, the views expressed in the aforesaid judgement and order make it imperative for the state to explain the circumstances under which ACP Bhoop Singh had passed the order under section 144 of CrPC on August 6, 2012 and to disclose if the said order was part of a series of repetitive orders,” Metropolitan Magistrate Jay Thareja said in his five-page order.
The court asked the police to probe further the entire incident during the protests on the coal block allocation issue and fixed the matter for further hearing on June 26.
Mr. Kejriwal and his supporters, who were protesting Jantar Mantar on August 26 last year, had allegedly violated the prohibitory orders by marching towards the residences of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi and then BJP President Nitin Gadkari.
Three separate FIRs have been lodged against 26 persons, including Mr. Kejriwal, for various offences including rioting and unlawful assembly during their protests.
The magistrate said that before passing any order, “it is important for this court to have all the information regarding passing of the order under section 144 of CrPC”.
It said determination of legality or illegality of the said order is material for the just adjudication of the present case and because in the recent past the Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi have been critical about misuse of the power under section 144 of CrPC by the Delhi Police in the New Delhi District.
The court asked the station house officer (SHO) of Tuglak Road Police Station to investigate about the circumstances “referred in the recitals of the order passed by ACP Bhoop Singh on August 6, 2012” regarding imposition of section 144 of the CrPC.
It also asked the police to obtain video footage of the entire incident saying the SHO “shall endeavour to obtain the video recorded by the TV channel reporters who were following the accused citizens on August 26, 2012.”
It referred to the statement made before it by one of the investigating officer of the case who had said that police had filmed the entire incident and it was not “filed along with the charge sheet because it did not pertain to the point at which the offences had been committed.”
The court asked the SHO to obtain video footage available with the Delhi Police in “order to test the veracity of the statement made by the investigating officer and the ocular evidence filed along with the charge sheet” against the accused in the three cases.
The issue whether imposition of section 144 of the CrPC was legal had cropped up after the accused had filed an application for discharge saying it was illegal, “clear abuse of process by police” and it was “designed to harass them”.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, AAP member and an accused in the case, Mr. Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 23 other accused had sought discharge in the case relating to charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, use of force to obstruct public servants from discharging their duty and damaging public property filed against them after protests on August 26, 2012.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgement which was critical of midnight crackdown on supporters of Yoga Guru Ramdev at Ramlila Maidan, the Delhi court said the issue relates to the “duty of the state to maintain law and order and the right of the citizens to move freely within the territory of India and their rights to express themselves by protesting against the government” and asked the police to file a report within two months.
“In my view, the views expressed in the aforesaid judgement and order make it imperative for the state to explain the circumstances under which ACP Bhoop Singh had passed the order under section 144 of CrPC on August 6, 2012 and to disclose if the said order was part of a series of repetitive orders,” Metropolitan Magistrate Jay Thareja said in his five-page order.
The court asked the police to probe further the entire incident during the protests on the coal block allocation issue and fixed the matter for further hearing on June 26.
Mr. Kejriwal and his supporters, who were protesting Jantar Mantar on August 26 last year, had allegedly violated the prohibitory orders by marching towards the residences of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi and then BJP President Nitin Gadkari.
Three separate FIRs have been lodged against 26 persons, including Mr. Kejriwal, for various offences including rioting and unlawful assembly during their protests.
The magistrate said that before passing any order, “it is important for this court to have all the information regarding passing of the order under section 144 of CrPC”.
It said determination of legality or illegality of the said order is material for the just adjudication of the present case and because in the recent past the Supreme Court and the High Court of Delhi have been critical about misuse of the power under section 144 of CrPC by the Delhi Police in the New Delhi District.
The court asked the station house officer (SHO) of Tuglak Road Police Station to investigate about the circumstances “referred in the recitals of the order passed by ACP Bhoop Singh on August 6, 2012” regarding imposition of section 144 of the CrPC.
It also asked the police to obtain video footage of the entire incident saying the SHO “shall endeavour to obtain the video recorded by the TV channel reporters who were following the accused citizens on August 26, 2012.”
It referred to the statement made before it by one of the investigating officer of the case who had said that police had filmed the entire incident and it was not “filed along with the charge sheet because it did not pertain to the point at which the offences had been committed.”
The court asked the SHO to obtain video footage available with the Delhi Police in “order to test the veracity of the statement made by the investigating officer and the ocular evidence filed along with the charge sheet” against the accused in the three cases.
The issue whether imposition of section 144 of the CrPC was legal had cropped up after the accused had filed an application for discharge saying it was illegal, “clear abuse of process by police” and it was “designed to harass them”.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, AAP member and an accused in the case, Mr. Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and 23 other accused had sought discharge in the case relating to charges of rioting, unlawful assembly, use of force to obstruct public servants from discharging their duty and damaging public property filed against them after protests on August 26, 2012.