It was under the instructions of Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, Baba Ramdev and his followers were evicted from the Ramlila grounds here on June 4, amicus curiae Rajeev Dhavan told the Supreme Court on Friday.
Making his submissions before a Bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, hearing suo motu a petition on the eviction episode, Mr. Dhavan quoted a June 8 press release issued by Mr. Chidambaram which said: “…a decision was taken that Baba Ramdev would not be allowed to organise any protest or undertake any fast-unto-death at Ramlila ground and that if he persisted in his efforts to do so he would be directed to remove himself from Delhi.”
Mr. Dhavan told the Bench that the Police Commissioner, in his affidavit, said “Delhi Police decided to enforce the decision to remove Baba Ramdev from Ramlila ground.” Further, the amicus curiae said, “on June 8 the Home Minister, in an interview to Doordarshan, said Baba Ramdev was clearly told that he had no permission to hold a yoga shivir. Meanwhile, the government had engaged him in a series of talks. A decision was taken that if he was determined he should remove himself from Delhi. But because the government was engaged in dialogue, the enforcement of the decision was deferred. Ultimately, when talks failed on June 3 or [when] he went back on his words, the police were told to enforce the decision and they enforced the decision.”
Mr. Dhavan said these press statements and interview would suggest that it was under Mr. Chidambaram's instructions the whole eviction exercise was undertaken and it was hard to believe that he was kept in the dark when the incident happened.
Rejecting the Police Commissioner's affidavit that as per protocol his communication was only with the Union Home Secretary and that he had not acted under Mr. Chidambaram's directions, Mr. Dhavan said the police official ought to have been more candid in his submissions.
“It is difficult to believe that it [eviction] is purely an operation of public order carried out by the police,” the amicus curiae said. He wanted the court to go into the issue whether “it is a political exercise and why the ban order was imposed at 11.30 p.m.”
Mr. Dhavan said, “When the court had taken suo motu cognisance of the incident, the Police Commissioner should have been more candid and given a true picture through the records. The Commissioner had not given full facts. Baba Ramdev was handed over a letter at 11 p.m. from Union Minister Kapil Sibal; at 11.30 p.m. a ban order under Section144 Cr.PC was imposed, citing a threat perception when none existed.”
The threat perception was a well-planned police strategy to evict Baba Ramdev, Mr. Dhavan said. He wanted to court to give a finding whether the police were negligent and, if so, remind them to act with due care and attention, and issue guidelines for future. He wanted exemplary damages awarded to those who sustained injuries in the incident.
