The State government on Tuesday informed the High Court of Karnataka that the imposition of prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) from December 19 to 2 in Bengaluru was an exigency measure in view of inputs on possible disturbance to public order and not to stop demonstrations and rallies against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
The government filed the statement in response to a batch of PIL petitions filed by several persons, including member of Rajya Sabha M.V Rajeev Gowda, challenging the imposition of Section 144 that had taken away permissions granted for protests and demonstrations against CAA on these three days.
The government pointed out that up to the morning of December 18, 2019, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) were consistently granting permissions for demonstrations and rallies, both against and in favour of CAA. However, later on December 18, the DCPS, based on intelligence inputs, audio and video clippings that indicated possible infiltration of anti-social elements into peaceful rallies, and developments in other parts of the State and country on the issue of CAA, had advised imposition of Section 144 in the city.
DGP’s view
Also, it has been pointed out in the statement that the Director-General and Inspector General of Police had on December 18 addressed a common communication to all police across the State advising them to take precautions by imposing Section 144 while pointing out the possibility of breach of peace by organisations, which had had earlier created communal tension in the State, and the possibility of forcing a bandh by certain groups.
Taking all these aspects into consideration the Police Commissioner decided to invoke Section 144 as it was impossible to segregate the peaceful demonstrators and the anti-social elements as a participation of a large number of people was anticipated, the government claimed, while pointing out that permission for both anti-CAA and pro-CAA demonstrations and rallies was granted after December 21.
Taking the statement on record, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar adjourned further hearing on the petitions.
