NEW DELHI: Delhi Police on Monday objected to certain statements made in the Delhi High Court plea related to the violence during Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) protests against the CAA last December, saying they are “more of a political statement made at a protest site.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi Police, took strong exception to the language used in certain paragraphs of the rejoinder filed by one of the petitioners in the matter and said, “you cannot malign constitutional authorities like this”.
“Irresponsible pleading is becoming an order of the day... This is more of a political statement made at a protest site and cannot be a pleading before the highest court of the state,” the senior law officer said, referring to the averments made in the rejoinder.
Mehta contended that ‘irresponsible’ pleadings have been filed in the rejoinder of one of the petitioners Nabila Hasan who has sought action against the police for allegedly brutally attacking the petitioners, students and residents of JMI.
Hasan’s plea has also sought action against the alleged ruthless, and excessive use of force and aggression unleashed by the police and paramilitary forces on students within the university.
Mehta was referring to the statement made in the rejoinder which said, “The police were utterly lawless obviously with clearance from the to. It is very probable that the order to mercilessly beat the students and break their bones as they began to assemble outside Jamia to begin a peaceful march to the Parliament came from the Home Minister.”
The rejoinder also stated, “The police force behaved as if they were common criminals. Their conduct was such that it would appear to the common person that the police force had been given instruction from the home Minister to break the law at will and to cause as much pain and damage and loss to the public as possible.” Raising objection to these statements, the Solicitor General said broadly everyone knows the intention behind filing of a petition but it should not be made so obvious in the pleadings.
“It is an example of irresponsible pleading. The intention comes out clear. You cannot malign the constitutional authorities like this. This brings the cat out of the bag. I have been saying this since the beginning that there is an agenda behind these petitions which are being pursued so vigorously,’ he contended.