The issue of Delhi police citing "Hindu resentment" in its direction to be careful with arrests in riots cases deserved a serious consideration. The HC, unfortunately, closed the matter without deeper examination. The HC's reasoning that police order did not cause prejudice...
...as it was issued after filing charge sheets in many cases is shallow IMHO.The very fact that such an order was issued means there could be cases where further arrests would be required. Also, filing of charge sheet is not the end of the matter.There could be further ...
..investigations.On last hearing, the Court had orally remarked that the order was "mischievous" and wondered what was the need for it. Yesterday, the case was finally disposed, accepting the explanation of police that charges sheets have been filed. The question earlier...
...raised by HC still remains - what is the need for issuing such an order? It does not need special mention that police should not make arbitrary arrests. What is the need to refer to the resentment of a particular community while giving such a direction? The order also refers..
..that community leaders had expressed their resentment. The order, coming in the backdrop of a polarised atmosphere after riots, was highly unwarranted and created a trust deficit on the police. This has to be read along with some earlier court observations that the riots...
...probe is "one sided". But without posing relevant questions, the matter was closed. Justice Suresh Kait also added a word of advice to media - that they should report accurately. Justice Kait had earlier expressed displeasure at the media reporting that his...
...bail order in P Chidambaram case had "copy paste" portions from the argument note submitted by ED(which in fact were pertaining to another case). He asked media to publish his clarification that there was no "copy paste", while considering an application filed by ED to...
..remove the "factual errors" and "accidental slips" from the Chidambaram order.
In this case too, the bench seemed more peeved at media reports than at the bizarre order of the police(which created sufficient reasons for apprehension of bias).
In this case too, the bench seemed more peeved at media reports than at the bizarre order of the police(which created sufficient reasons for apprehension of bias).
Also, the concept of prejudice is irrelevant while considering the legality of an administrative order. If the order is arbitrary, violative of fundamental rights and is issued without legal authority, it must be quashed, regardless of any actual prejudice caused.
