CJP Parliament march: High Court refuses to order NIA probe into foreign funding claims

Addressing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the government and the petitioner in the case, the High Court said, “Are you saying you’re not following (laid down mandate…. to need court directions)? There is every authority available to you to deal with such situations. Do that. You’re under a mandate (to act according to laid down law).”

Satish Kumar Aggarwal, ex-vice president of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, who had moved the petition, withdrew it after the High Court indicated that it is not inclined to entertain the petition.

Aggarwal, in his petition, wanted the court to direct the NIA or any other specialised investigating agency to probe the alleged attempts at blocking Parliament and alleged stone pelting at police personnel that led to the police sustaining injuries, on July 20 during the ‘Chalo Sansad’ march by protesters.

Aggarwal also sought the High Court intervention to direct the authorities to “identify persons responsible for acts of violence, vandalism, obstruction of emergency services, damage to public and private property,” among other offences.

While Aggarwal’s counsel stressed that the ’ “fundamental rights” of citizens are being denied owing to the disruption in livelihoods, including due to the shutdown of some Metro stations, the High Court said that there is an alternate remedy available to air these grievances. The court opined that Aggarwal can approach the government with a representation, and the government can take a decision on it accordingly.

The court made the remarks even as SG Mehta urged the court that Aggarwal’s petition can be heard along with two other petitions that deal with police excesses and brutalities on protesters that left several injured, and the government’s response can be called for.

The court also disposed of a petition by Save India Foundation, a nonprofit, which was also imploring the court’s intervention on alleged attack on security personnel. The court permitted the outfit to make its representation to the government.

The High Court also dealt with a third petition by former JNUSU president Aishe Ghosh, objecting to the continuous and indiscriminate surveillance at the protest site, which it will hear on July 27.

Even as SG Mehta argued that “privacy is not a fundamental right in a public place where there is a legitimate state interest,” which then allows the state to take proportionate actions that is surveillance in this case, Ghosh’s counsel disagreed.

Senior advocate Nandita Rao, representing Ghosh, urged that a protocol be framed on how the data captured from the surveillance shall be used. “This violation of the privacy of protesters is criminalising a fundamental right to peacefully protest.”

While SG Mehta countered that the protesters themselves are “tweeting” and “making reels”, Rao argued, “When the state is doing videography, they are standing on a different footing. There must be a purpose. Are they (protesters) on the same footing (as the state)? Can a citizen arrest the state?”