SC issues notices to Delhi govt, Centre on Kejriwal dharna

The court asked the authorities to explain whether the police had acted expeditiously in dispersing the unlawful gathering after directing it to go away

BS Reporter New Delhi
Last Updated : Jan 25 2014 | 1:13 AM IST
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notices to the Delhi government and the Centre on two public interest suits. It asked the Delhi police commissioner and law enforcement authorities to explain why despite the imposition of prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the police had allowed people to assemble near Rail Bhavan during the two-day agitation by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).

The court asked the authorities to explain whether the police had acted expeditiously in dispersing the unlawful gathering after directing it to go away.

A bench headed by R M Lodha will look into the issue of whether a constitutional post holder (Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal) could resort to agitation, in violation of the law.

AAP spokesperson Deepak Vajpayee said, “AAP will respond appropriately, at the appropriate time. We have one and a half months.”

The judges asked Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra why the gathering was permitted when more than four persons couldn’t assemble after prohibitory orders were passed. The assembly of hundreds of people could have been visible to the police if only they were vigilant, the judges said. As Luthra sought to discuss the matter with the police commissioner, the court adjourned a hearing on the matter for six weeks.

The two suits were filed by lawyers Manohar Lal Sharma and N Rajaraman, who alleged ministers and AAP workers had violated the rule of law and should be prosecuted. Their counsel said the chief minister, his cabinet colleagues and partymen, also defied a 2009 judgment in which detailed guidelines had been laid down for conducting dharnas and demonstrations. The guidelines had also provided for compensation for destruction of property by demonstrators. A commission should be set up to assess the financial damage caused and the guilty should be compelled to pay for it, the counsel argued.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jan 25 2014 | 12:34 AM IST

Next Story