Police lapse outside Delhi CM residence, security arrangements were inadequate: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Monday, April 25, directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to probe and fix responsibility for a “serious lapse” outside Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s residence last month in which members of the BJP’s youth wing (BJYM) were allegedly They reached the entrance by breaking barricades and damaged public property.
The court termed the incident as a “very disturbing situation”
A petition was filed in the High Court by Aam Aadmi Party MLA Saurabh Bhardwaj during a demonstration organized by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha on March 30 against Kejriwal’s remarks on the film ‘The Kashmir Files’. was imposed. On which the bench of Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla was hearing. The bench said that it is clear that there has been a ‘lapse’ from the police force and the bandobast (security arrangements) were not adequate.
Bhardwaj has demanded the formation of SIT in the petition filed through Advocate Bharat Gupta. He was represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rahul Mehta. The bench termed the failure of the police to not ensure security at a time when the youth wing of the BJP was protesting despite not getting permission.
“In view of the permission sought by the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, the arrangement made outside the Chief Minister’s residence and the road leading to the residence was not sufficient,” the bench said. The court said, “It is quite clear that there was a failure of the police force to prevent the incident. We want the police commissioner to investigate the lapse on the part of the police. The court said that as per the status report filed by the police, some miscreants broke the barricades and reached the entrance of the residence. The court said, “In our view, the above omission is a serious lapse and should be looked into by the Delhi Police Commissioner.”
“He (Commissioner of Police) should first examine whether the settlement was adequate, second- on account of the failure of the arrangements made and third- fix the responsibility for the lapses,” the court said. It clarified that as far as security arrangements are concerned, it is not satisfied with the present status report of the police, which was given in a sealed cover. The court gave the police commissioner two weeks to file another status report on this aspect, including a review of the chief minister’s security. The bench said that if there is any lapse in the investigation in the matter, the magistrate concerned can look into it and judicial remedies are available.
Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for Delhi Police, said that the investigation is on and the Chief Minister’s security has been reviewed and the petition should be closed. He said that though the incident should not have happened, but a lapse does not mean that there was any deficiency in the settlement.
The court said, “Once there is a lapse, one has to face the consequences. Responsibility should be fixed so that corrective steps can be taken. Whatever the ideology, it is a very important aspect of democracy. As we say no one can say that he is not our prime minister. That is the constitutional post to which we are attached. It is not about any person or any other person.
It said, “Such an incident at the residence of any constitutional functionary, whether it is a Chief Minister or a Judge of a High Court or Supreme Court or any other Union Minister, it is very disturbing that such a situation should arise or such mischievous elements.” Succeed in your endeavour… How did you arrange that people crossed three barricades. Then you need to seriously look at your efficiency and performance.
It questioned whether additional forces were called when the first barricade was broken or when the mob reached the chief minister’s residence? The court said that the issue related to security arrangements needs to be investigated at the highest level.
Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rahul Mehta, appearing for the petitioner, urged the court to constitute an SIT for a fair and independent probe into the incident. Singhvi claimed that some of the people seen in the videos and photographs of the incident were later honored by a political party.
Bhardwaj, in his petition through advocate Bharat Gupta, had sought constitution of a SIT to probe the alleged attack and argued that his official residence was vandalized during the protest against the Chief Minister’s remarks on the film ‘The Kashmir Files’. It appears to have been done in connivance with the police.
The petition alleged, “On 30 March 2022, several goons of the BJP, under the guise of protest, attacked the official residence of the Chief Minister of Delhi. The videos and photographs show that these goons (created by Delhi Police) easily crossed the security cordon, broke the boom barrier, smashed CCTV cameras with sticks, threw paint at the gate of the residence and nearly hit the gate. climbed up while the Delhi Police personnel kept watching and did nothing to stop the protesters.
On April 1, the High Court had sought a status report from the police regarding the incident. The next hearing of the case will be on May 17.
