Delhi High Court hears PIL against imposition of Section 144 in Delhi Orders reserved

The Delhi High Court yesterday heard the Public Interest Litigation (WP 8127 of 2012 Anand K. Mishra v. Delhi Police & Ors.) filed by Advocate Anand Mishra challenging the imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in certain areas of Delhi. The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Chief Justice D. Murugesan and Justice V. K. Jain and orders on the same have been reserved. On December 28, 2012 a vacation bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Prabitha Rani, before whom the PIL was originally listed, had directed that the PIL be placed before the Chief Justice’s Bench for further hearing..The Delhi High Court yesterday heard the Public Interest Litigation (WP 8127 of 2012 Anand K. Mishra v. Delhi Police & Ors.) filed by Advocate Anand Mishra challenging the imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in certain areas of Delhi. The matter was heard by the Division Bench of Chief Justice D. Murugesan and Justice V. K. Jain and orders on the same have been reserved. On December 28, 2012 a vacation bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Prabitha Rani, before whom the PIL was originally listed, had directed that the PIL be placed before the Chief Justice’s Bench for further hearing..Senior Advocate Chetan Sharma represented the Petitioner. He stated that the petition sought to bring out the “legal import of S.144 and the balance it has to strike with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution”. He contended that the order imposing S. 144 in the instant case – which had been imposed on the ground of easing traffic congestion – was not in the spirit of S.144 and the procedure required to be followed while giving an ex parte order under S. 144 was not followed. Sharma also requested the Court to frame guidelines to be followed for the imposition of S.144..Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra represented the Respondent and argued that the protestors in and around India Gate were causing obstruction to traffic and an order for removal of obstruction as in the instant case was well within the contours of S. 144. He further contended that framing guidelines for imposition of S.144 was not a practical solution as orders under S.144 were issued depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.