NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court asked the AAP on Friday how a “ruling” political party could seek permission to hold a protest in the national capital when there was a prohibitory order in force against gatherings in view of ongoing farmers’ protests.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, while hearing the Aam Aadmi Party’s (AAP) petition challenging the police’s refusal to allow it to hold a “peaceful protest” of 800 people at Jantar Mantar on February 25 in relation to allegedly inflated water bills, said if the permission is granted to the party, a floodgate of other such applications will open.
“When P2 (an order under section 144 of the CrPC) is there, how can a ruling party come (for permission)? P2 is there and you, as the government or as a party which is the government, (permission) cannot be granted,” the judge said.
“If it is permitted for you, there will be an opening of floodgates,” he added.
The senior counsel appearing in the matter on the petitioner’s behalf said even after the section 144 order, thousands of people were allowed to hold gatherings and permission was also granted to a political party with a “much larger fanfare”.
“We are going to have it on Sunday, within the confined area, a peaceful protest with only 800 people,” the senior lawyer said.
“Certain restrictions are in place to circumvent the movement from borders. So this is not going to happen at any cost.... We are not going to agitate anything for these organisations,” he added.
The AAP’s counsel, however, withdrew the petition after the court said it would grant time till Monday to the police’s counsel to take instructions.
Earlier this month, the AAP had said it would launch protests against inflated water bills and officials obstructing its proposed one-time settlement scheme aimed at addressing the issue.
It had claimed that the Delhi government’s one-time settlement scheme for redressing faulty water bills hit a roadblock with the urban development secretary refusing to present the proposal before the Council of Ministers.
The AAP had said the police’s refusal was in violation of the right to protest.