The Delhi High Court basically gave a response to a concerned NGO that the police can take care of its own work. A PIL challenged the right of the protest to be held in the first place, sought to have the court intervene and put an end to the protest. The vacation bench wasn’t having it. On Friday, Justices Saurabh Banerjee and Amit Sharma heard the petition but rejected the plea to hear it urgently. This left the organisers of the protest on 6 June free from the responsibility to organise an event at Jantar Mantar, while the police were getting ready for the possibility of a large crowd.
The Push for a Preemptive Strike
The petition didn’t come from the state. This was submitted by an NGO called the Save India Foundation. They demanded tougher regulation, now. They demanded orders to arrest the crowd at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Metro stations and at the entry points of the highways. The NGO definitely panicked when it witnessed the amount of online mobilization that Abhijeet Dipke has managed to do. They used the term “public safety” to describe the coming event, not a democratic show.
Lawyers Umesh Chand Sharma and Vikas Sharma headed straight for vacation bench. They stated that extraordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 must be called upon. Their descriptions were of a complete disorder. They said that the Janta Party of the Cockroach was using digital messaging to direct people to make disturbances at the airport. The plea stated that those who came in were instructed to bring pepper spray and wooden sticks. The purpose was to violently oppose any law-enforcement effort at crowd control, according to the petitioners.
Doing what this means, is a huge step from an online satirical tool kit to actual physical violence. The NGO accuses the rhetoric has become “explicit hate speech” and open ultimatums for the downfall of a democratically elected government. They even made mention of the recent structural collapses and violent civil unrest in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, indicating that the intent of the CJP was to create a similar scenario on the streets of New Delhi.
The Bench is deferring to the law enforcement.
Justices Saurabh Banerjee and Amit Sharma did not agree with the notion of the judiciary taking a step ahead of the executive. The listing was rejected by the bench as an emergency listing. When the court conducted oral observations, it only mentioned that the police will take care of it.
This is an accepted judicial tactic to stop bans on protest beforehand. Generally, the courts will not be fond of “preventative” law and order policing. The local authorities already have powers to take action under section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) when they are anticipating a threat to public tranquillity. Thousands of paramilitary troops and weighty barricades were already in place for police use. The bench was aware of this. They found no need for special writs, for the police commissioner already had complete power to keep the streets of the Capital in order.
The petitioner also stated that essential services would be denied. Ambulances being trapped in the streets and important infrastructure being paralyzed were alarming concerns. The court remained unchanged on its observation. It is the Delhi Traffic Police and the district administration’s responsibility to ensure that the traffic flow is maintained and hospitals are accessible, and not the high court.
The Digital Escalation Argument
What was most intriguing in the Save India Foundation’s plea was the way in which they broke down the digital trail of the CJP. The petition claimed that the movement has been conducting a huge, unchecked mobilisation campaign aimed at the young community via Instagram. They said the method adopted was to give sequential tasks aimed to instill institutional defiance.
This was not simply the display of placards by a couple of children. The NGO claimed that some Lawyers, using their legal status to the advantage of the society are misusing their legal position. They had been alleging that these lawyers were encouraging lay citizens to circumvent state laws offering state-controlled legal aid by promising them free legal assistance and that they would not be held accountable if it led to criminal charges. If correct, then the CJP had in place a dedicated legal defence system before anyone had been on Parliament Street.
The petition also pointed out the timeline. On June 4, the Save India Foundation submitted a comprehensive delegation to the Delhi Police Commissioner, the New Delhi District Magistrate as well as the Delhi and IGI Deputy Commissioners of Police. They questioned the authorities about whether or not the CJP had requested permission to hold the meeting. They weren’t notified by the respondents to post any definite instructions to prevent the enforcement of such a rule within 24 hours, and they were panicking and running to the high court.
Aftermath of the Refusal
As the court did not agree to hear the case on an urgent basis, the NGO had to make a switch. The Save India Foundation then stated that they will file another detailed representation with DCP, New Delhi, after the court noted that the police will take care of the situation during their oral observation of the case. That they would make sure the police would actually do what the court thought they would do.
This legal ploy utterly failed to effectively prevent Abhijeet Dipke from reaching Delhi and proceeding towards the protest site. He was accompanied by supporters who had been chanting slogans for the resignation of the education minister and he walked out with his copy of B.R. Ambedkar’s autobiography in hand. The assembly was held. A few individuals were detained by police as a preventive measure against the possibility of a clash between opposing groups. However, the large apocalyptic event which the NGO had warned of did not occur as the NGO had predicted. The court’s decision to take a chance on the police who were doing the ground level threat assessment paid off. It removed the judiciary from the dirty politics of the day and left the state to deal with the swirl of dirt.
