Alternate Routes Purposely Blocked: Azad Moves SC on Shaheen Bagh

He said the argument that protesters are blocking the road and causing inconvenience to the public is misleading.

File image of Bhim Army Chief Chandrashekhar Azad.

(Photo: PTI)

Bhim Army Chief Chandrashekhar Azad and former CIC Wajahat Habibullah filed an application in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, 12 February, to intervene in the petition filed before the court, asking for removal of protesters at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi.

In their application, Azad, Habibullah and Bahadur Abbas Naqvi have argued that the petition is “collusive and motivated” and that it is intended to “enable the administration (to) use the orders of this Honorable Court to justify police force and excesses on women who are protesting peacefully in Shaheen Bagh.”

They have also suggested that the argument that protesters are blocking the road and causing inconvenience to public is misleading.

They claim that the administration has “deliberately blocked various other roads connecting Delhi to Noida and Faridabad on the pretext of the Shaheen Bagh demonstrations (which have been completely peaceful), to deliberately create a situation where the public is inconvenienced.”

(Photo: Twitter)

‘Collusion With Central Govt’

The application goes on to list the alternative routes which they say have been blocked, including the Kalindi Kunj-Mithapur Road. They allege that the petition by Amit Sahni before the court was filed in collusion with the central government, which controls the police force in Delhi.

As a result, they say they needed to file this application before the court as they are worried that, “The real facts will not be placed before this Honorable Court and that the Honorable Court may be misled into passing orders that will be used by the central government as a pretext to commit mass genocide of innocent women and citizens of this country.”

No specific evidence is provided in support of a claim of possible “genocide,” though the applicants have requested the court’s leave to amend any of the averments in their application as required.

Azad, Habibullah and Naqvi have requested on this basis to be allowed to intervene so that they can place all relevant facts and materials before the Supreme Court and permit them to make oral and written submissions in the case.

The Supreme Court conducted a brief hearing on the case on 10 February, when it observed that protests should take place at designated areas and not cause inconvenience to the public.

At the same time, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph also observed that they would not pass any interim orders for removal of the protesters, and that the petitioners could wait a little longer.

The case has next been listed for hearing on 17 February, at which time this intervention application may be considered (if there are no defects or other procedural infirmities with the application).