The Delhi Excessive Court docket on Wednesday issued a discover searching for responses from the Delhi Police, the Authorities of NCT Delhi, and different respondents on a plea filed by the Apex Physique Leh.
The plea requested permission for local weather activist Sonam Wangchuk and others to carry a peaceable protest or quick at Jantar Mantar from October eight to October 23, 2024.
A bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma has directed the events to submit their replies by October 18, 2024, with an in depth listening to scheduled for October 22, 2024.
Solicitor Common Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, opposed the plea, questioning the urgency of the protest.
The Apex Physique Leh approached the Delhi Excessive Court docket on Tuesday, searching for permission for Sonam Wangchuk and different ‘Padyatris’ to carry a peaceable protest (Anshan) at Jantar Mantar or one other appropriate location. The plea asserts that this can be a basic proper below Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian Structure, which defend free speech and peaceable meeting.
The petition mentions that round 200 individuals initiated a peaceable protest march, often known as a Padyatra, from Leh, Ladakh, to New Delhi, protecting over 900 kilometres in 30 days. Their intention is to boost consciousness in regards to the ecological and cultural degradation of Ladakh and the broader Himalayan area. The petitioners want to maintain an consciousness marketing campaign and peaceable protests at Jantar Mantar or one other appropriate location in Delhi.
The Delhi Police had rejected the Padyatra protest request, citing “no legitimate grounds”.
The petition argues that on October 5, 2024, the Delhi Police arbitrarily rejected the request for a peaceable demonstration at Jantar Mantar, thereby violating the petitioners’ basic rights to free speech and peaceable meeting below Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Structure.
Moreover, the petition claims that the Delhi Police haven’t supplied legitimate or affordable grounds for this rejection, regardless of the peaceable nature of the march. It assures that the proposed demonstration is a peaceable expression of dissent, geared toward elevating consciousness of great social points.
The deliberate Anshan seeks to speak grievances to the authorities, and the denial of permission suppresses this basic proper, limiting the petitioners’ means to interact in public discourse, thereby undermining the precept of open expression.
