news details |
|
|
| Bar's petition challenging restrictions under section 144 of CrPC | | HC summon record, directs Home Secy, DM, SSP Jammu to file affidavits | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 12: High court judge Tashi Rabstan, in a jampacked court, directed the state home secretary, district magistrate, Jammu, and SSP, Jammu, to produce the record with regard to imposition of section 144 of CrPC restrictions, asking them to file affidavits by or before next date of hearing, ie August 14 next when the matter will be heard at 8:30 am sharp.
These directions were passed in the writ petition filed by J&K High Court Bar Association, Jammu, through its general secretary A P Singh, seeking quashment of order No 54 DMJ of August 1, 2015 whereby the district magistrate had imposed restrictions under section 144 of CrPC within the municipal limits of all Jammu tehsils.
The counsels of the petitioner association submitted that order imposing restrictions was issued by the district magistrate, Jammu, with non-application of mind as the entire order is non-speaking, vindictive, biased and actuated with malafide considerations. He branded the order as draconian as it took away the fundamental right of the petitioner association and AIIMS Coordination Committee (ACC) to lodge peaceful protest for their demand of establishing full-fledged AIIMS in Jammu.
They submitted that the impugned order was issued just to snub the ongoing agitation which received mammoth support from entire Jammu province which irked the coalition government and in order to defuse the momentum, the provisions of section 144 of CrPC were invoked.
One of the counsels submitted that the agitation had throughout remained peaceful and the minor incidents, if any, were due to the provocation of police, saying that print and electronic media had highlighted the police brutality which did not even spare the Bar president who is also ACC chairman as he was mercilessly beaten by the cops and not only this, teargas shells were also used against the protesting lawyers and other ACC members.
He submitted that entire Jammu district was covered under the restrictions of section 144 of CrPC which clearly shows the non-application of mind, saying the discriminatory approach of the authorities is writ large as on one hand the ACC dharna was forcefully lifted from its original site and on the other hand, authorities allowed the so-called victory procession of BJP, thereby flouting the so-called restrictions.
He also drew the court's attention towards the Apex Court judgment delivered in Ram Leela Maidan incident case where cops of Delhi police dispersed the sleeping protesters, reading out its various paragraphs wherein the Supreme Court had held that power under Section 144 of CrPC must be exercised by the executive under emergent and grave situations and the Apex Court had further held that the emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave. He submitted that in the instant case there was no occasion for the district magistrate to invoke the prohibitory provisions when the agitation was peaceful.
He submitted that the bar association had the history of espousing the cause and aspirations of people of Jammu province and the people of Jammu had always reposed faith on the petitioner association. The association was pressing for better medical facilities for the people of Jammu province as the existing health care facilities were not adequate to meet their aspirations, he added.
Two other counsels argued that there was no satisfaction on the part of the district magistrate and the impugned order was bad in the eyes of law, requesting the court to stay its operation and allow the association to invite people for Independence Day celebrations at the dharna site. He also requested the court to issue requisite orders for maintaining status quo in the matter as the peaceful dharna had already started on the main high court road. He submitted that the written assurance be obtained from the state counsel for not causing any obstruction in the ACC's ongoing dharna.
Two AAGs, who, appeared on behalf of the state, requested the court that some time be given for filing the response. One of them submitted that the impugned order was valid and the petitioner, if aggrieved, could approach the district magistrate, Jammu, for its recalling and on receiving such application, he would pass appropriate orders. The other said the impugned order was on the basis of the inputs received from local police and there are numerous FIRs which have been taken into account by the district magistrate while issuing the impugned order. At this stage, additional DM, Jammu, Riffat Kohli also caused appearance and sought time to place before the court relevant records justifying the imposition of restrictions.
After hearing both the sides at length, Justice Rabstan directed home secretary, DM and SSP to produce the records and file affidavits before the next date of hearing and looking into the urgency expressed by the petitioner association, he fixed the matter at 8.30 am on August 14, 2015.(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
