Delhi High Court: Delhi Police Assures CJP Protest Control

• The Delhi Police assured the Delhi High Court it would take all possible measures to control the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest on October 16 in Connaught Place.
• Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma presented this assurance to a bench led by Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre.
• The High Court formally recorded the police's commitment to regulate the CJP's activities and take necessary legal steps.
• The court clarified that "Respondent Number 6," referring to CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, includes all office bearers and associates of the party.
• A request for specific restraint on CJP for potential criminal contempt was declined by the court, which deemed its existing order sufficient.

Lawyers advising on public demonstrations or freedom of assembly in Delhi should note the Delhi High Court's recording of police assurances to control specific protests, which may set a precedent for future handling of similar events and the scope of responsibility for protest organizers and their associates.

The Delhi Police provided a firm assurance to the Delhi High Court, stating its commitment to implement "all possible measures" to manage and control a planned protest by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). This demonstration is scheduled to take place in Connaught Place on October 16. The court formally acknowledged and recorded this assurance, which was presented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma.

ASG Sharma conveyed the police's readiness before a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma. The court's order explicitly noted that the apprehension of the petitioner would be addressed, as authorities had already undertaken significant steps to regulate the activities of Respondent Number 6, identified as the CJP through its founder, Abhijeet Dipke. The police further committed to taking any additional necessary legal steps to ensure order during the event.

During the proceedings, ASG Chetan Sharma sought clarification from the bench regarding the scope of the term "Respondent Number 6." Sharma emphasized the importance of ensuring that any injunction or control measures extended beyond just the founder, Abhijeet Dipke, to include his associates. He articulated a concern that if only the founder were restrained, his "right-hand man" or other associates could continue the protest, thereby undermining the court's directive and perpetuating the original cause of action.

Responding to this crucial point, the Delhi High Court clarified that "Respondent Number 6" would indeed encompass not only the founder but also all office bearers of the Cockroach Janta Party and everyone associated with it. This broad interpretation aims to prevent any circumvention of the court's order. Subsequently, a counsel named Puri requested the court to specifically restrain the CJP, intending to establish grounds for criminal contempt proceedings should the court's order be violated. However, the court declined this specific request, stating, "We have passed an order now, Mr Puri. Don't insist on that."

The Delhi High Court's recording of the Delhi Police's assurance regarding the CJP protest control in Connaught Place carries significant implications for the management of public demonstrations in the capital. This judicial acknowledgment of police commitment to maintain public order, coupled with the explicit clarification on the scope of responsibility for protest organizers and their associates, could serve as a notable precedent.

Lawyers advising on public demonstrations or freedom of assembly in Delhi should note the Delhi High Court's recording of police assurances to control specific protests, which may set a precedent for future handling of similar events and the scope of responsibility for protest organizers and their associates. The court's stance underscores the judiciary's role in balancing the right to protest with the imperative of maintaining public peace and order, potentially influencing how future protests are permitted, monitored, and managed by law enforcement agencies.

Lawyers advising on public demonstrations or freedom of assembly in Delhi should note the Delhi High Court's recording of police assurances to control specific protests, which may set a precedent for future handling of similar events and the scope of responsibility for protest organizers and their associates.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet