'Delhi Police Not Issuing Section 144 orders In The Way They're Supposed To' : Senior Advocate Rebecca John

“This provision is supposed to be used to prevent an emergent situation where the State has nothing else to fall back on. But it is currently being used to basically regulate ordinary life, and to snoop on citizens. Citizens should be conscious of the fact that this provision is being weaponised against us. The problem is the intrinsic distrust that the state has towards its citizens – that they will not follow the law, that they need to be monitored at every stage, and that they need to be snooped upon. It’s this culture that we must challenge.”

John was speaking on Sunday (March 26) at a launch of a report titled ‘The Use and Misuse of Section 144 CrPC: An Empirical Analysis of all the Orders Passed in 2021 in Delhi’ by a group of Delhi-based advocates comprising Vrinda Bhandari, Abhinav Sekhri, Natasha Maheshwari, and Madhav Aggarwal. The report has revealed that emergency powers under Section 144 were exercised by the Delhi police as many as 6,100 times in 2021. Also in attendance at the event was former Indian chief justice UU Lalit.

Section 144 confers on the State residual power, which must be exercised where it is felt that immediate action is necessary, John explained. Largely, it is to be used in an emergency situation to prevent obstruction, annoyance, injury to any person, human life, health, safety, or disturbance of the public, or public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray, she added. In this connection, John referred to Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, which, she said, was also subject to misuse. “This is a provision which must be used for the purposes of interception only if there is a clear threat of public disorder, where the integrity and sovereignty of the country are at threat. But you see lawful interception orders being passed without taking into account the limitations of this section.” She explained that the misuse of Section 144 CrPC was similar to that of Section 5 of the Telegraph Act(which is used to issue internet suspension orders).

As per the report, the Delhi police issued orders under Section 144 for a slew of reasons apart from curbing threats to public order, including installation of CCTV cameras, regulation of businesses and services through record and registration requirements, regulation of courier services, prohibition of consumption of tobacco in hookah parlours, etc. Calling the report an ‘eyeopener’, the renowned criminal lawyer said the findings needed to be exposed. “It needs to come out in the public domain that these are the sort of orders that have been passed under Section 144, which would hopefully generate some interest. It is quite shocking that a provision can be used to monitor the tiniest aspect of your life.”

John also said, “If you have the power to do a particular thing in a particular way, it must be done in that way. What we are seeing here is a violation of this principle. Delhi police is not issuing Section 144 orders in the way that they were supposed to do it.” Calling for reforms, the senior counsel insisted, “The time has come to narrow down the scope of this section if this is the length to which they are going. The constitutional validity of this provision must be revisited in courts.” She further added, “This section is not used for any laudable objective, and if there is a laudable objective, there's a need to narrow the provision down. We cannot have such a broad-based provision which literally interferes with every aspect of our lives. 

Former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit also spoke at the event - 'Peaceful Protest One's Constitutional Right' : Former CJI UU Lalit Raises Concerns About Rampant Use Of Section 144 CrPC In Delhi