Delhi Police's Prohibitory Orders Affecting Ramlila & Religious Gatherings : Kalkaji Temple Priest Approaches Supreme Court

A Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the prohibitory order issued by the Delhi Police banning the assembly of five or more persons, dharnas, protests etc in Delhi from September 30 to October 5 (both days inclusive).

The petitioner is Sunil, a priest of the Kalkaji temple and the Secretary of the Manas Naman Sewa Society, which organises the grand Ramlila fair at the Satpula Ground in Chirag Delhi. The petitioner stated that the Ramlila festivities, which were scheduled to commence on October 3, cannot happen due to the Delhi Police's order.

The petitioner pointed out that the religiously significant period of Navratas begins on October 3, during which period several religious gatherings and festivities take place traditionally. The petitioner also pointed out that Dusshera and Navratri are around the corner. However, the Delhi Police's prohibitory order will prevent such festivals and religious gatherings.

It was on September 30 that the Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora issued the order, invoking the powers under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) prohibiting in the Districts of New Delhi, North and Central and in all police stations having territorial jurisdiction over the borders of Delhi for a period of 6 days from September 30 to October 5 (i) assembly of five or more unauthorised persons, (ii) carrying of fire-arms, banners, placards, lathis, spears, swords, sticks brickbats etc, (iii) picketing or dharnas in any public area etc. The Police Commissioner stated that the general atmosphere in Delhi was "sensitive" from a law and order point of view in view of the proposed Waqf Amendment Bill, MCD Standing Committee election issue, DUSU elections, and calls made by various organizations for protests. The police also cited the impending elections in J&K and Haryana.

The petitioner contended that there was no reasonable basis for issuing the prohibitory order. The instances cited in the order are well known in the public domain in advance and it is for the police to take adequate security measures, instead of issuing broad and sweeping orders against the legitimate activities of the citizens, the petitioner contended.

"It is respectfully submitted that it appears that instead of performing its duties in respect of the maintenance of law and order and crowd management, the Respondent simply seeks to evade them by trying to prohibit legitimate gatherings that would ordinarily take place in a plural and thriving metropolis such as Delhi. It should also be mentioned that various other festivals for various faiths have been permitted previously to take place unobstructed by any order such as the impugned order and the impugned order does not have any reasoning about why the early days of the Navratas should be treated as a different case," the petition stated.

"The assailed Order proves to be a serious hindrance to the general day-to-day life of individuals, and their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(b), 19(1)(d), 21, and 25, which causes grave hindrance to the rights, life, and livelihood of the citizens of Delhi. The Order has also resulted in an atmosphere of fear wherein an enormous number of residents in Delhi are perturbed regarding the nature of the Order, as well as its implications on their religious beliefs and traditions," the petition filed through Advocate Prateek Chaddha stated.

The petition referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India(2020) which held that orders under Section 144 CrPC (previous version of Section 163 BNSS) can't be issued as a matter of routine. Reliance was also placed on Madhu Limaye v. SDM (1970), which held that Section 144 CrPC powers can be issued only in exceptional circumstances.