Police v Lawyers : Delhi HC Issues Clarifications On MHA's Petition [Read Order]

[Updated with order]The Delhi High Court on Wednesday clarified that the restriction on taking coercive action against lawyers imposed as per order issued on November 3 pertained only to the two FIRs registered on November 2.Holding so, the bench comprising Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Harishanker disposed of the applications filed by the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking clarification and review of the November 3 order."Thus, we hereby clarify that observations made in para 15(ix) that no coercive action shall be taken is only in pursuance of FIR Nos. 268/2019 and 269/2019, both dated 2nd November, 2019", stated the bench.The bench added that the observations made in the November 3 order were the prima facie opinion of the court which shall not hinder with the investigation to be taken up by the Judicial Commission constituted under the said order. The court also clarified that the factual observations made in paragraph 15(viii) of the last order, which had talked about the gunshot firing and dragging the lawyer to the lockup, were only prima facie in nature. These are tentative observations that shall only be read in context of the order dated November 3. While passing the order, the court highlighted the following:"We deem it appropriate to note, with a sense of anguish, that, in our democratic polity, the Bar and the Police establishment represent and constitute, as it were, the preserver, and the protector, of the rule of law. They are but two faces of the coin of justice, and it is essential, for the rule of law to prevail, that they work in close proximity and harmony. Any dissonance, or friction, between them, is deleterious to peace and harmony, and destructive of public interest, in the long run"The clarification was sought by MHA one a specific direction by the Court that no coercive action should be taken against the lawyers named in the FIRs lodged by the Delhi Police for the clash that had taken place at the Tis Hazari Court complex on Saturday. The MHA sought a clarification that this direction is applicable only to the two FIRs which were registered before November 3, and not to subsequent FIRs registered by police against lawyers for the violence which took place on Monday.Delhi Police had made the following submissions in its review application before the court:Pass an order modifying the order dated 03.11.2019 to exclude the words "One had opened the firing upon the Advocates and another had dragged a lawyer into the lockup room and confined him therein. Normally lockup room is meant for prisoners." in Para15(viii) so that the same cannot be read and interpreted as the conclusive findings against the officers of the Delhi Police in question;Pass an order modifying the Order "Mr. Harender Kumar Singh had ordered for firing. Firearm injuries sustained by Advocates. Mr.Sanjay Singh ordered for lathicharge upon Advocates. Because of this order injuries were sustained by Advocates and also the police had broken window glasses of Cars parked at the Tis Hazari Courts Complex and have ransacked the Chambers of Advocates at Tis Hazari Courts Complex, New Delhi." in Para 15(x) so that the same cannot be read and interpreted as the conclusive findings against the officers of the Delhi Police in question;In the hearing today, Advocate Mohit Mathur, president of Delhi HC Bar Association submitted that the application for clarification moved by Ministry of Home Affairs was wholly unnecessary."If Police had already lodged the FIRs on November 4, why did the move present application for clarification? Let police say that it will take action against officers who make scandalous statements against lawyers", he submitted.The Bar Council of India submitted before the Court that in the Saket court matter, the police lodged an FIR under section 392 IPC, which refers to dacoity, against the lawyer. This is the abuse of their power, submitted the BCI."The police should not be given any further power to lodge FIRs in this matter before the prior permission of this court or the judicial enquiry. The police has to show what action they have taken against the officers who fired gun shots at lawyers. Instead, they are hurling abuses at lawyers", submitted Advocate Kirti Uppal for the Bar Council of India.Advocate Rakesh Khanna, President of Supreme Court Bar Association, urged the Court to stop the media from reporting the matter.In Saket court fight, the FIR registered against the lawyer is under Sec 392 IPC, which deals with dacoity. This shows abuse of power by police#LawyersVsDelhiPolice— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) November 6, 2019Advocate K C Mittal, Chairperson of Bar Council of Delhi, submitted that the agitation will calm down the moment guilt police officials are arrested and charged under Section 307 IPC.In a special sitting held on Sunday, the bench comprising Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Harishanker had ordered judicial probe into the Tis Hazari fight and directed action against police...

Police v Lawyers : Delhi HC Issues Clarifications On MHA's Petition [Read Order]

Karan Tripathi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Police v Lawyers : Delhi HC Issues Clarifications On MHA's Petition [Read Order]

Karan Tripathi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers