http://chroniclecraze.blogspot.com/
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court of India will on Tuesday hear an unprecedented petition filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) accusing Delhi Police of excessive force during the ongoing opposition protests — including dragging senior advocates through the streets, detaining legal professionals without stated grounds, and paralysing access to the court complex through barricades, metro closures, and internet suspensions.
The hearing comes amid a widening political storm. The opposition INDIA bloc, led by Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, marched to the Supreme Court on Monday to protest alleged electoral fraud and voter roll manipulation under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise. They filed a formal petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar — not Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The petition demands a detailed police report specifying how many lawyers were detained, under what legal provision, who issued the orders, and who is accountable for the excessive force used. It also challenges the legality of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and questions whether the closure of metro stations and suspension of internet services around the court had the Chief Justice's knowledge or consent.
"Democratic activities must take place smoothly, but there should be no obstruction to the functioning of the Supreme Court, the movement of lawyers, and litigants," Justice Kant said. He also made clear the court's reluctance to be drawn into political disputes: "This court does not belong to any political party. Institutions are performing their institutional duties. The Supreme Court should not be dragged into any political activity."
Yet the court had already acted decisively a day earlier. In a special Sunday sitting, a bench of Justices Bagchi and Mohana issued binding restrictions on police conduct: peaceful, unarmed protesters must not be unlawfully detained; lawyers, journalists, and other professionals must not be prevented from discharging their duties; and metro and rail services should operate normally without disrupting public order. The bench also ordered the removal of a Section 163 prohibitory order posted inside the Supreme Court building and issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, the Delhi Police Commissioner, and the DMRC Chairman, demanding compliance reports by October 13.
Separately, opposition leaders initially requested an administrative meeting with CJI Surya Kant to hand over a memorandum. The Chief Justice declined the unscheduled meeting, explaining that doing so would violate the constitutional separation of powers, as the matter is already sub judice — under active judicial consideration. He advised them to raise their concerns through the formal judicial process instead.
First, the boundary between protest rights and access to justice. When police seal roads to the Supreme Court, shut down metro stations, and cut internet services, the damage is not limited to protesters' freedom of movement. Ordinary litigants, lawyers, and court staff are also denied access to the very institution that exists to remedy rights violations. By calling the court a "basic service," Justice Kant affirmed a critical constitutional principle: the judiciary's accessibility cannot be sacrificed to crowd control.
Second, judicial review of discretionary police powers. The SCBA petition seeks disclosure of the full text, issuance rationale, and enforcement scope of the Section 163 orders. This is, in substance, a demand for procedural review of emergency administrative powers. Such orders are typically issued in the name of "preventive" policing, but without effective oversight they can become instruments for suppressing peaceful assembly.
Third, the self-protection of rule-of-law institutions. Notably, the SCBA explicitly stated in its petition that it does not support strikes, boycotts, or refusal to appear in court. Its objective is narrowly framed: protecting the right of lawyers and litigants to enter the court. This restraint mirrors the Chief Justice's insistence that the court stay out of politics — and creates a rare moment of alignment between the bar and the bench on the principle that the courts must remain open and functional.
If the court finds that police conduct exceeded legal bounds, it could issue further mandatory orders or contempt notices. The fate of the opposition's petition, meanwhile, depends on whether its legal team can repair the procedural defects in time to secure a listing.
For those watching the trajectory of Indian constitutionalism, Tuesday's proceedings are not merely a lawyers' rights case. They test whether the judiciary can hold its own door — neither allowing politics to invade the courtroom, nor allowing the courtroom to look away from injustice on the street.
No comments:
Post a Comment