Pursuant to the Supreme Court order, the Delhi Police have registered a case of endangering life or personal safety of others against unknown policemen who had indulged in violence and caused damage to property while evicting supporters of Baba Ramdev from the Ramlila Maidan here in June last year.
The case was registered under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code at the Kamla Market police station on Saturday. A case naming Baba Ramdev is already registered for alleged rioting, assault on public servants, causing hurt, unlawful assembly and other charges.
The Supreme Court had in its order dated February 23 found that some policemen had “inflicted cane injuries, threw bricks and even used tear-gas shells, causing fire on the stage and total commotion and confusion among the large gathering”.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We have registered a case and initiated the process for identification of the policemen who were involved in violence. We will examine the video footages obtained from news channels and photographs published in the newspapers in this regard. The probe has to be completed and report submitted within three months from the Supreme Court order,” said a police officer.
The Delhi Police have also set up a fact-finding committee in view of the Apex Court directive last month for disciplinary action against the police personnel who were present in the pandal and still did not help in the evacuation of the large gathering and in transportation of sick and injured people to hospitals. “Such police personnel would also be identified and appropriate action taken against them,” said the officer.
Holding the Bharat Swabhiman Trust--which had organised the yoga camp at the Ramlila Maidan--guilty of contributory negligence, the Supreme Court had upheld the power of the police to grant permission for holding dharnas and rallies. The Supreme Court also did not find imposition of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code mala fide, but found the police action partially arbitrary.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Apex Court also issued directions to the police that while considering “threat perception” as a ground for revoking permissions or passing an order under Section 144, “care perception” had to be treated as an integral part thereof. The Court said the police should have in place a complete and effective plan for dispersal, before evicting the gathering by use of force from a particular place.