- Delhi High Court dismissed petition for community fine on protesters.
- Petitioner sought ₹50 crore compensation for citizens affected by protests.
- Court cited Supreme Court’s ongoing hearings on many similar matters.
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking a community fine on the Cockroach Janta Party over the inconvenience caused to ordinary citizens by recent protests against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) in Delhi.
The petitioner argued that while the right to protest and freedom of expression were being discussed, the rights of ordinary citizens affected by the demonstrations also needed to be protected.
“What about the right of the general public, the ordinary citizen, whose only crime is that he has chosen to reside in Delhi, his day-to-day activity…” the petitioner submitted.
The plea sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, and the Ministry of Law and Justice to frame guidelines for imposing an
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking a community fine on the Cockroach Janta Party over the inconvenience caused to ordinary citizens by recent protests against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) in Delhi.
Plea Seeks Compensation For Citizens Affected By Protests
The petitioner argued that while the right to protest and freedom of expression were being discussed, the rights of ordinary citizens affected by the demonstrations also needed to be protected.
“What about the right of the general public, the ordinary citizen, whose only crime is that he has chosen to reside in Delhi, his day-to-day activity…” the petitioner submitted.
The plea sought directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, and the Ministry of Law and Justice to frame guidelines for imposing and recovering community fines to compensate citizens affected by the protests.
The petitioner also argued that compensation would deter organisations from causing similar disruptions in the future. The plea sought ₹50 crore as an interim amount for the harm allegedly suffered by ordinary citizens.
High Court Points To Petitions Pending Before Supreme Court
However, the court noted that the Supreme Court was already hearing several petitions concerning the matter.
“What is the scope of those proceedings? More than 50 petitions are pending before the Apex Court,” Acting Chief Justice Sambre told the petitioner.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that several small traders had approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the protests had brought their livelihoods to a standstill.
The petitioner argued that imposing a community fine would deter organisations from causing such disruptions, adding that otherwise, “nothing is stopping them; State was helpless”.
The court orally responded, “No, no, State has handled it.”
Petitioner Given Liberty To Approach Supreme Court
The Solicitor General also disputed the petitioner’s claim and suggested that the petitioner could join the proceedings before the Supreme Court. He added that the plea raised a valid public law issue.
“Judicial discipline warrants that in such eventuality, this court must stay its hands away from proceedings and not pass conflicting orders,” the High Court observed.
The court disposed of the petition, clarifying that it had not examined the merits of the plea and granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Supreme Court for relief.
d recovering community fines to compensate citizens affected by the protests.
The petitioner also argued that compensation would deter organisations from causing similar disruptions in the future. The plea sought ₹50 crore as an interim amount for the harm allegedly suffered by ordinary citizens.
However, the court noted that the Supreme Court was already hearing several petitions concerning the matter.
“What is the scope of those proceedings? More than 50 petitions are pending before the Apex Court,” Acting Chief Justice Sambre told the petitioner.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that several small traders had approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the protests had brought their livelihoods to a standstill.
The petitioner argued that imposing a community fine would deter organisations from causing such disruptions, adding that otherwise, “nothing is stopping them; State was helpless”.
The court orally responded, “No, no, State has handled it.”
The Solicitor General also disputed the petitioner’s claim and suggested that the petitioner could join the proceedings before the Supreme Court. He added that the plea raised a valid public law issue.
“Judicial discipline warrants that in such eventuality, this court must stay its hands away from proceedings and not pass conflicting orders,” the High Court observed.
The court disposed of the petition, clarifying that it had not examined the merits of the plea and granting the petitioner liberty to approach the Supreme Court for relief.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: abplive.com
