Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1810
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, C. Hari Shankar, JJ.
Court on its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 11652 of 2019
Decided On : 06-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Maninder Acharya, Anil Soni, Shreeshail Malge, K.M. Nataraj, Anurag Ahluwalia, Anmol Chandan, Abhigyan Siddhant, Rahul Mehra, Chaitanya Gosain, Tushar Sannu, Amarpreet Singh, Anand Thanbayil, Jamal Akhtar, Manan Kumar Misra, S. Prabhakaran, Ved Prakash Sharma, Ram Shankar, K.C. Mittal, Suman Rani, Sanjay Rathi, Piyush Sharma, D.K. Sharma, R.K. Kochar, D.K. Singh, Surya Prakash Khatri, Murari Tiwari, Ajayinder Sangwan, Rakesh K. Khanna, J.M. Sharma, Rishi Kumar, Sandeep Lamba, Yasir, Preeti Singh, Tanver Ahmed Khan, Shoeb Shakil, Vishwajit Shahi, Sanjay Khanna, Jagjeet K. Sud, Saching Gupta, Vivek Narayan Sharma, Savita Singh, Mohit Mathur, Kriti Uppal, B.S. Dhir, Kajal Chandra, Naginder Benipal, Dhan Mohan, Jatan Singh, Rupali Kapoor, Abhijat, Mohit Gupta, Amit Saxena, Harshit Jain, P.S. Prakash, Sitab Ali Chaudhary, A.K. Chaurasiya, B.P. Singh, G.M. Akhtar, Ajay Sharma, Nikhil Mehta, Rahul Dutta, Mithilesh Kumar Jaiswal, Abhishek Gupta, Rajiv Khosla, Sunil Rai, Sunil Sharma, Amit Sharma, Surender Chauhan, N.C. Gupta, Jaivir Chauhan, Ansul Pratap Singh, Shitez Sharma, Mohit Rana, Sahil Aeron, Vaibhav Jain, Robin, Prateek Mehta, Vivek Kumar, Ankur Kr. Sharma, J.S. Chauhan, Rajender Sharma, Rachit Sahney, Naveen Gaur, R.K. Sharma, Varunn Sakuja, Karnail Singh, Dhir Singh Kasana, Deepanshu Joshi, Himanshu Vashishth, Hemant Mehta, Raman Sharma, Ch Rabindra Singh, R.B.S. Chauhan, Pramod Nagar, Amit Sinha, Y.P. Singh, Rajesh Kaushik, Jai Singh Yadav, Subhash Ahlawat, K.K. Chauhan, R.K. Wadhwa, D.S. Khatana, Nagender Kumar, Ravi Mehta, Vijay Pratap Singh, Sunil Pandey, S.N. Sharma, Naveen Kapila, Ashok Sharma, Jalaj Agarwal, A. Rana, Prashant Saini, Mahavir Sharma, Rajbir Malik, Rakesh Chahar, Siddharth, Tarun Dubey, Rajiv Sharma, Honey Jain, Prateek Goswami, Ojas Mittal, Anupam S. Sharma, Prakash Airan, Apoorv Bansal, Pankaj Chaudhary, Pardeep Kumar Saini, Hemant Kumar, Sachin Gautam, Jatin Anand Dwivedi, Shubhnan Chaturvedi, Hemant Kumar Mathur, Abhishek Rana, Manish Kumar, Gagan Gupta, Sanket Gupta, A.C.P. Gautam, Anil Kumar Verma, Ashu Rani, T. Singh, Tanveer A. Khan, Suraj Kumar, Gagan Kumar, Amit Kumar Singh, Satish Bhandari, B.S. Bagga, Pankaj Gupta, Vishal Singh, Raja Ram Tripathi, Ashish Deep Verma, Anshul Pratap Singh, Upendra K. Nagar, Vivek Ojha, Sanjeev, Ankur Kumar, Neeraj, Akhilesh Singh, Nawin Kumar, Nitesh Mehra, Angel Bhardwaj, S. Bhateja, Hitaakshi Mehra, Ashish P.
The need for close proximity and harmony between the Bar and the Police establishment is essential for the rule of law to prevail.
Headnote:
clarification - Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India - W.P. (C) No. 11652/2019 - para 15(ix), para 15(viii), para 15(x)
Fact of the Case:
Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India filed a Civil Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification of the court's order dated 3rd November, 2019 in W.P. (C) 11652/2019 regarding FIR Nos. 268/2019 and 269/2019.
Finding of the Court:
The court clarified that no coercive action shall be taken against the Advocates in pursuance of FIR Nos. 268/2019 and 269/2019 dated 2nd November, 2019. The court also emphasized the need for close proximity and harmony between the Bar and the Police establishment.
Issues: Clarification of court's order regarding FIR Nos. 268/2019 and 269/2019, and the relationship between the Bar and the Police establishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the need to maintain peace and harmony between the Bar and the Police establishment, and the specific circumstances of FIR Nos. 268/2019 and 269/2019.
Final Decision: The civil miscellaneous application was allowed and disposed of with the clarification provided by the court.
JUDGMENT :
CM APPL. No. 48283/2019 in W.P. (C) No. 11652/2019
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been preferred by Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India with the following prayers:
"(a) Allow the instant application and clarify the order dated 03.11.2019 that there is no impediment in taking any action in accordance with law to maintain law and order.
(b) Pass any other orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. By this application applicant is seeking clarification of the order passed by this Court dated 3rd November, 2019 in W.P. (C) 11652/2019, especially seeking clarification in paragraph 15(ix).
3. Having heard all the counsels at length and looking to our order dated 3rd November, 2019, we hereby clarify that the observations made in para 15(ix) were for FIR Nos. 268/2019 and 269/2019, both dated 2nd November, 2019.
4. Hence, paragraph 15(ix) will now be read as under:
"(ix) Meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the Advocates in pursuance of the F.I.R. Nos. 268/2019 and 269/2019 dated 2nd November, 2019 with regard to the aforesaid incident filed against Advocates."
5. Thus, we hereby clarify that observations made in para 15(ix) that no coercive action shall be taken is only in pursuance of FIR Nos. 268/2019 and 269/2019, both dated 2nd November, 2019.
6. With this clarification this civil miscellaneous application is hereby allowed and disposed of.
CM APPL. No. 48439/2019 in W.P. (C) No. 11652/2019
7. This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been preferred by Delhi Police. Looking to the urgency of the matter, the same is taken up for hearing today. Prayers in this Civil Miscellaneous Application read as under:
"(a) Pass an order modifying the order dated 03.11.2019 to exclude the words "One had opened the firing upon the Advocates and another had dragged a lawyer into the lockup room and confined him therein. Normally lockup room is meant for prisoners." in Para 15 (viii) so that the same cannot be read and interpreted as the conclusive findings against the officers of the Delhi Police in question.
(b) Pass an order modifying the Order "Mr. Harender Kumar Singh had ordered for firing. Firearm injuries sustained by Advocates. Mr. Sanjay Singh ordered for lathi-charge upon Advocates. Because of this order injuries were sustained by Advocates and also the police had broken window glasses of Cars parked at the Tis Hazari Courts Complex and have ransacked the Chambers of Advocates at Tis Hazari Courts Complex, New Delhi." in Para 15(x) so that the same cannot be read and interpreted as the conclusive findings against the officers of the Delhi Police in question.
(c) Pass any Order or any further Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
8. Having heard all the counsels at length and looking to our order dated 3rd November, 2019, we hereby clarify that the observations made in paragraph 15 (viii) of the order dated 3rd November, 2019:-
"One had opened the firing upon Advocates and another had dragged a lawyer into the lockup room and confined him therein. Normally the lockup room is meant for prisoners."
Are prima-facie observations, tentative in nature and these observations are only to be read in the context of the order dated 3rd November, 2019; otherwise, these facts are to be proved on the basis of the evidences on record.
9. Similarly, the observations made by this Court in paragraph 15(x) of our order dated 3rd November, 2019, in W.P. (C) No. 11652/2019:
"Mr. Harender Kumar Singh had ordered for firing. Firearm injuries sustained by Advocates. Mr. Sanjay Singh ordered for lathi-charge upon Advocates. Because of this order injuries were sustained by Advocates and also the police had broken window glasses of Cars parked at the Tis Hazari Courts Complex and have ransacked the Chambers of Advocates at Tis Hazari Courts Complex, New Delhi. Further order will be passed by this
