Kejriwal protest: Supreme Court cracks the whip, asks Delhi Police how it allowed mob to assemble

New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, has come under the scanner of Supreme Court for protests while holding constitutional office.The apex court has questioned the planned protest of Arvind Kejriwal carried out on January 21 despite Delhi Police imposing prohibitory orders and Section 144 preventing assembly of five or more persons.A bench comprising R M Lodha and Shiva Kirti Singh questioned Delhi Police Commissioner B S Bassi how such a large number of people assembled despite prohibitory orders under secton 144 of CrPC was clamped.The court also asked the DCP why the police allowed such a big gathering to take place when it amounted to breach of prohibitory orders.Observing that “the task in hand is to see that the constitutional provisions are respected,” the bench sought explanation by Janaury 31 from the Police Commissioner why people were allowed to gather unlawfully at the site of dharna by Kejriwal.AAP party was demanding action against policemen who refused to carry out a raid on an alleged drug and prostitution ring on a Delhi minister Somnath Bharti's directive last week.“We want information on two queries as to why despite the prohibitory order under section 144 of CrPC the law enforcing agencies/police permit five and more persons unlawfully. “Second whether law enforcing agencies/police acted appropriately and with utmost expedition in dispersing the unlawful assembly by force under section 129 (2) of CrPC after such assembly was informed under section 129 (1) of CrPC to disperse and despite such command the assembly did not disperse,” the bench said in its order.The bench, which was hearing the PIL filed by advocate M L Sharma, issued notice to the Centre through the Ministry of Home Affairs and Delhi Government and sought their response within sex weeks on the issue whether constitutional post holder can resort to agitation in violation of law.“Constituion is supreme and every institution is a product of Constitution and every individual who holds the office is governed by the Constitution,” the bench observed while adding that “We are only concerned with Constitutional issues”. It agreed to examine “whether chief minister/minister is allowed to play a double role, i.e. holding constitutional office and street agitator against the constitutional systems in a same time, under the constitution of India? The bench also tagged the petition filed by another advocate N Rajaraman, who also raised identical issues. The court was told that the “law makers have become law breakers” and this has been manifested by Kejriwal and his ministers who staged the dharna, hampering preparations for the Republic Day.Before seeking explanation from the Delhi Police Commissioner, the bench raised several questions to Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, who had contended that there was no need to go into the petition filed by Rajaraman as the prayers made by him has become in fructuous. Luthra had submitted that police had swung into action on January 19 evening by issuing prohibitory orders but people violated it and started gathering around the site of Kejriwal's dharna the next day.When the ASG explained the process for dealing the violation of prohibitory order, the bench questioned why there was delay on the part of the cops to disperse the unlawful assembly of people.“These are matters of law and order. How did they (people) assemble? Mob is already there and you are allowing the gathering to swell,” the bench said and added that law enforcing agencies should have acted under the legal provision by issuing a command that people should disperse. “Our concern is when we are empowered to enforce law why did we allow it to happen (unlawful assembly),” the bench said.When ASG said police generally wait for 45 minutes after the command, the bench declined to accept his explanation and gave an example of the terror strike at World Trade Centre in United States. “In three minutes, the WTC collapsed in US,” the bench said.