Activists’ detention: HC says reasons cited not enough

The affidavit said there was “secret” information that the two activists were planning something during the visit of US secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The information they had was that the two activists,while conversing with each other,had said it’s time to create a “dhamaal” (ruckus).

A division bench of Justice Bilal Nazki and Justice A R Joshi,however,observed,“But where is the offence?”

Additional Public Prosecutor Dinesh Adsule,who submitted the affidavit about the detentions that was filed by DCP K M M Prasanna,in his arguments,said it was a preventive action. “What if they had thrown a stone or something,” Adsule said.

The court did not buy the argument and asserted that if that was the case,then police should have pursued it instead.

Activists Feroze Mithiboriwala of Awami Bharat and Aslam Gazi of Jamat-e-Islam had filed the petition after the police detained them under Section 151 of the CrPC apprehending they would commit some offence during the American dignitary’s visit.

The state stand was that the duo was planning some demonstration against Clinton. The court had on Monday asked what was wrong if anyone wanted to demonstrate against some American dignitary. “We’ve become physically free but mentally we’re still in 1947,” Justice Nazki observed.

Today amicus curie N N Gawankar appointed on Monday by the court and petitioners’ lawyer Mihir Desai submitted a few apex court judgements dealing with detention powers of police. Desai told the court that the petitioners’ had no plans to do anything during the Clinton’s visit.

The court will now go through Section 41 and Section 151 of the CrPC. As per Section 41,there has to be reasonable suspicion to arrest a person. However,to apply Section 151,mere suspicion is not enough,the court observed. “The standard is more than what is in section 41,” Justice Nazki said.

After going through Section 151 that states that the officer should know of a design to commit some offence,justice Nazki felt there was a need to go further into the interpretation of the section to streamline detention powers of the police.

The court has adjourned hearing to September 7.