|
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned why Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka had invoked its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the extension of their judicial custody, observing that their remedy lay in revision.
Your second incident. You are a person who has actually broken a bond. Your remedy actually lies in revision, the court observed while hearing the plea challenging the October 19 order of the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM). The court asked advocate Abhik Chimni, appearing for the petitioners, why they had approached the High Court when the order could be challenged before the appropriate revisional forum. It noted that an appellate or revisional court could examine the facts, whereas writ proceedings primarily focus on the decision-making process. The bench also questioned whether the authorities could insist on stricter surety conditions after an alleged second breach of a peace bond. Once you have broken peace for the second time, are the authorities not entitled to insist upon everything? the court asked. The court noted that the challenge to the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site was pending before the Supreme Court and that the notification had not been stayed. It questioned the petitioners decision to return to the site in these circumstances. The bench also expressed concern that breaching barricades could encourage others to violate prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The two petitioners here are at the forefront. When you go and break a barricade, the chances of 10 or 20 more people in violation of 163 are very high, the court observed. It further remarked that police permission for protests serves to prevent unwanted elements from joining demonstrations and disrupting them. During the hearing, Chimni argued that the October 19 order was legally unsustainable, contending that the SEM lacked jurisdiction to extend the petitioners custody and that preventive proceedings were being used arbitrarily. He also questioned the rejection of the sureties, stating that two additional sureties were available but were not called upon for consideration. The SEMs order, he submitted, referred to discrepancies in photographs and difficulties in verifying details relating to one of the petitioners. The court also examined the circumstances surrounding the petitioners earlier bond and asked about the procedure prescribed under the BNSS in cases of breach of a bond. Chimni argued that the order failed to specify material establishing an imminent threat to peace and tranquillity. The petitioners had challenged the SEMs October 19 order extending their judicial custody till October 21 and sought its quashing and their release. During the hearing, the court suggested that they await the outcome of proceedings before the SEM, which was scheduled to reconsider their sureties at 2 pm. The petitioners subsequently withdrew their plea. The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (ANI)
|
