The Delhi High Court on Wednesday rejected the review petition of its November 3 order, preferred by the Delhi Police in the suo moto case of Tis Hazari clashes between Delhi police personnel and lawyers. The court clarified that its November 3 order was with respect to the prior FIRs filed for November 2 aggressions and should not affect investigation into allegations against lawyers at the Saket district court.
The bench has also stated that observations made in the order is only a prima facie opinion of the court, tentative in nature, which shall not hinder the investigation taken up by the judicial inquiry constituted under the said order.
The Delhi Police had filed for a review of the Delhi High Court’s November 3 order.
Mohit Mathur, President of DHCBA, argued, “There is no need for the MHA to file a review petition as the order is already clear.”
He further said, “The police have already filed an FIR and there is no need for this application and clarification.”
The counsel representing the Bar Council of India said, “The police have filed an FIR against the advocate under the Section 392 of IPC which is a gross misuse of the administrative powers. The further FIRs should be allowed now in this matter upon the permission from the court.
KC Mittal, Chairperson, BCD, remarked, “The agitation is due to the inefficiency of the police in arresting the accused. The agitation can be calmed in just a while upon the arrest of accused officer under section 307.”
Mathur intervened saying, “Let the court order to move the application before the judicial inquiry and the fate of the application be left on the wisdom of that committee to decide.”
The bench, also comprising Justice C Hari Shankar, said in its order, “…in our democratic polity, the Bar and the Police establishment represent and constitute, as it were, the preserver, and the protector, of the rule of law. They are but two faces of the coin of justice, and it is essential, for the rule of law to prevail, that they work in close proximity and harmony. Any dissonance, or friction, between them, is deleterious to peace and harmony, and destructive of public interest, in the long run.”
The court also advised a joint meeting of lawyers and the police to amicably sort out the differences.
Read the order below:
— India Legal Bureau