|
Retired senior civil servant Ashish Joshi has moved the Delhi High Court through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the repeated extensions of large-scale deployment of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) in Delhi for protest-related law and order duties.
The petition, filed through advocates Ambuj Dixit and Amrish Ranjan Pandey, seeks judicial scrutiny of the legal and administrative basis for the deployment, including the necessity, proportionality, duration and periodic review of the forces deployed in the national capital. Referring to reports of 301 companies being initially approved, 273 companies being retained until October 31, 2026, and a further extension involving 270 companies until November 16, 2026, Joshi has raised constitutional concerns under Articles 14, 19 and 21, particularly in the context of the right to peaceful democratic assembly. The petitioner has sought directions to the Centre and Delhi Police to place on record the original Ministry of Home Affairs orders, police requisitions, risk assessments and reconciled force-wise deployment figures. He has also sought an assessment of the impact of such deployment on other operational responsibilities, including counter-insurgency operations, border security, election preparedness and disaster response. The PIL further seeks that any continuation or extension of the deployment be supported by written and reasoned orders recording the prevailing circumstances, necessity and geographical spread of the forces, with periodic reviews at intervals not exceeding 14 days. It also seeks clarity on the respective responsibilities of civil authorities and command structures, besides framing of a written protocol governing substantial or repeatedly extended CAPF deployments for protest-related duties. The petition has additionally sought a declaration that an order deploying CAPFs in aid of civil power cannot, by itself, be treated as blanket authority to disperse peaceful assemblies, detain individuals merely for participating in protests or use force. Any coercive action, it states, must independently satisfy the applicable statutory and constitutional requirements, including necessity and proportionality. (ANI)
|
