- Delhi HC questioned CJP leaders on their bond breach.
- Court observed unpermitted Jantar Mantar protest after denotification.
- Judges debated bond enforcement, evolving protest group objectives.
- HC suggested withdrawing petition for SEM court hearing.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday began hearing a petition filed by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka challenging the bond conditions imposed on them.
During the hearing, the court questioned the petitioners over the alleged breach of their bonds and their visit to Jantar Mantar without permission after the protest site was denotified.
“You have breached the bond. You are persons who have violated the bond,” the court observed, asking whether enforcing the conditions of a bond could be considered unlawful.
The court also questioned whether authorities were entitled to impose stricter bond conditions after a second violation.
Delhi HC Questions Visit To Jantar Mantar
The High Court noted that the petition challenging the denotification of Jantar Mantar was pending before the Supreme Court and that no stay had been granted in the matter.
The court observed that the petitioners were at the forefront of protests and said that when they broke barricades, there was a possibility that large numbers of others could follow. It added that some people might not remain under the organisers’ control, referring to similar situations witnessed outside India.
The court suggested that Das and Ranka’s lawyer consider withdrawing the petition and waiting for a hearing before the SEM court on Wednesday.
Court Asks About Organisers, Purpose Of Protest
During the hearing, the court asked Das and Ranka about their ages, remarking that they were not members of Generation Z. It also asked what age group was generally described as millennials.
The court observed that the protest had initially been a student-led demonstration involving children, but that its focus had since changed.
“The people are the same, but the purpose of the protest has changed,” the court said, according to the remarks reported from the hearing.
It also asked the petitioners which organisation they belonged to and what its objectives were. The court said such questions became important when there was a possibility of a breach of peace.
The bench further raised the question of whether a magistrate, while assessing the likelihood of a breach of peace, should consider the nature and objectives of groups whose demands and purposes change over time.
The hearing was continuing at the time of the reported proceedings.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: abplive.com
