PIL filed in Delhi High Court against imposition of S144 in Delhi Matter to be heard by Chief Justice on January 2 2013

A writ petition filed by Advocate Anand Mishra challenging the imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in certain areas of Delhi came up for hearing today before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Pratibha Rani directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice’s Bench for further hearing on January 2, 2013..A writ petition filed by Advocate Anand Mishra challenging the imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in certain areas of Delhi came up for hearing today before the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Pratibha Rani directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice’s Bench for further hearing on January 2, 2013..Mishra has approached the High Court contending that the use of S.144 by the Delhi Police was in violation of the fundamental right to assemble peacefully and move through the territory of the country. Through an order dated December 22, 2012, the Delhi Police had imposed restrictions on the assembly of people in and around India Gate and Rajpath. As per the petition, the police also resorted to lathi charges and tear gas to dispel the crowd; a crowd composed largely of “school and college students”. The protestors were then moved to Jantar Mantar..Speaking to Bar and Bench, Advocate Mishra stated that “Section 144 is imposed in case of emergency situations to tackle unforeseen circumstances and cannot be used as a tool to tackle simple law and order problems”..Interestingly, Mishra had first filed an application to quash the S.144 order before the Patiala House District Court. However, he was then directed to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction..Mishra has argued that an order under S.144 can only be issued to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health of safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray which was not the case in the present fact situation. Mishra states that the protest was peaceful and there was no likelihood of a riot like situation. He further argues that the “danger” referred to in S.144 must be of an immediate nature, and that the Delhi police ought to have considered a lesser alternative as was directed by the Supreme Court in In Re: Ramlila Maidan. Lastly, Mishra contends that the police have imposed a complete “ban on the movement of people” despite the fact that the S.144 order prohibits assembly of five or more people..Mishra has sought the reliefs of declaring the S.144 order as unconstitutional, and has also prayed for the framing of proper guidelines for imposition of restrictions under S. 144.