Prohibitory order on assembly of five or more people in Delhi withdrawn: Centre to Supreme Court

The Court was hearing a plea by a priest of the Kalkaji temple stating that the order would adversely affect Navratri festivities in the city.
Delhi Police
Delhi Police
Published on
2 min read

The Central government on Thursday informed the Supreme Court that the prohibitory order issued by the Delhi Police under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which barred the assembly of five or more people in the national capital from September 30 to October 5, had been withdrawn.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra recorded Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta's submission regarding the withdrawal of the order.

"Police is under the Union. SG submits that the prohibitory order has been withdrawn," the Court noted.

The order dated September 30 prohibited the assembly of five or more unauthorised persons, the carrying of firearms, banners, placards, or lathis, and the organisation of picketing or dharnas in public areas.

The order was reportedly passed based on intelligence inputs about multiple protests and campaigns in the city in the first week of October.

The Court was hearing a plea was filed by Sunil, the priest of the famous Kalkaji temple and secretary of the Manas Naman Sewa Society, which organises the grand Ramlila at the Satpula Ground in Chirag Delhi.

According to the plea filed through Advocate Prateek Chadha, the prohibitory order would have affected footfall at the Ramlila.

It had underlined that the period covered by the prohibitory order coincides with the religiously significant Navratri, which began on October 3.

As such, it had contended that any assembly celebrating the festivities in the areas notified by the order (New Delhi, North Delhi, Central Delhi, and all border areas of the NCT of Delhi) would have been adversely affected.

The plea had further argued that there was no indication of an "urgent" requirement for curtailing civil liberties and had contended that the Delhi Police order did not relate to any emergency or unforeseen circumstances that would necessitate such a curfew.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy.

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com