PIL against prohibitory orders at India Gate
29 Dec 2012 1:53 AM GMT
A PIL was filed on Friday in Delhi High Court, challenging the imposition of prohibitory orders around India Gate during protests against the gangrape of a young woman.
Filed by advocate Anand K Mishra, the public interest litigation challenged the decision apparently aimed at preserving public tranquillity during the street protests.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Pratibha Rani agreed to hear the PIL and posted it for 2 January.
Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Delhi Police, justified the imposition of section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code banning the assembly of five or more people.
In the PIL against the home ministry, Delhi government and Delhi Police, Mishra sought a direction to declare the 22 December decision ‘unconstitutional and illegal’.
‘The police has further been acting in derogation of that illegal order imposing total ban and creating curfew like situation around India Gate restricting magistrates, lawyers, court staff, people and litigants from approaching Patiala House Court complex under the garb that they apprehend problem to public order,’ said the plea.
The plea said there were ‘unreasonable restrictions’ on peaceful assembly and movement of public at large.
Mishra said there was no grave and uncontrollable situation warranting the order.
‘It is apparent that after the unfortunate incident of gang-rape and brutal sexual assault on a 23-year-old and a boy who was with her on 16 December, people have lost faith in the system," the PIL said.
Filed by advocate Anand K Mishra, the public interest litigation challenged the decision apparently aimed at preserving public tranquillity during the street protests.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Pratibha Rani agreed to hear the PIL and posted it for 2 January.
Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Delhi Police, justified the imposition of section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code banning the assembly of five or more people.
In the PIL against the home ministry, Delhi government and Delhi Police, Mishra sought a direction to declare the 22 December decision ‘unconstitutional and illegal’.
‘The police has further been acting in derogation of that illegal order imposing total ban and creating curfew like situation around India Gate restricting magistrates, lawyers, court staff, people and litigants from approaching Patiala House Court complex under the garb that they apprehend problem to public order,’ said the plea.
The plea said there were ‘unreasonable restrictions’ on peaceful assembly and movement of public at large.
Mishra said there was no grave and uncontrollable situation warranting the order.
‘It is apparent that after the unfortunate incident of gang-rape and brutal sexual assault on a 23-year-old and a boy who was with her on 16 December, people have lost faith in the system," the PIL said.
Next Story
