Former CJI U. U. Lalit called the report ‘The Use and Misuse of Section 144 CrPC’ an eye-opener.
| Photo Credit: FILE PHOTO
Conferring drastic powers upon the executive or the police through Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not acceptable in a nation governed by the rule of law, former Chief Justice of India U.U. Lalit said on Sunday.
The CJI made the comment while speaking at the launch event of a report titled ‘The Use and Misuse of Section 144 CrPC’, here at the India International Centre.
The report, compiled by four lawyers based on Right to Information responses, states that prohibitory orders were issued over 6,100 times in the national capital in 2021.
Calling the report an “eye-opener”, the former CJI said the pattern that emerges from the report “is quite disturbing”.
‘National interest’
The report examines nearly 5,400 orders issued for the enforcement of Section 144 in the city.
“The remaining nearly 600 orders were not provided to us by police officers citing breach of ‘national interest’,” said Natasha Maheshwari, one of the lawyers involved in compiling the report.
Abhinav Sekhi, another lawyer who worked on the report, said, “In some cases, Section 144 was used to regulate the sale of balms or cough syrups, which are often used as drugs.”
The former CJI, addressing a gathering of law professionals and students, said, “If someone had told me earlier that Section 144 could be invoked for such mundane affairs, I would have laughed at it.”
Stating that the legality of Section 144 has been challenged twice before the Supreme Court, he said “the current state of affairs demands urgent steps”.
“Perhaps this report, along with other material, can be placed before a court as a public interest litigation,” he added.
The report categorises the prohibitory orders into four broad themes, including establishing CCTV surveillance and regulating businesses.
‘State surveillance’
“State surveillance is being supplemented by a vast parallel network of private actors being asked to install CCTVs — ATMs, banks, NBFCs and other financial institutions, liquors vends, courier services, girls’ schools and PGs, hotels, amusement parks and cinema halls,” it noted.
“In effect, we have with us a setup where Big Brother is always watching, whether we are watching a movie with a friend or sending a package to a loved one,” states the report, which includes Vrinda Bhandari and Madhav Aggrawal as authors.
‘Time to challenge it’
Senior advocate Rebecca Mammen John said the time has come to challenge the constitutional validity of the prohibitory orders.
“Section 144 is an emergency provision to prevent rioting, and maintain tranquillity and peace. But as per this report, the State uses it to snoop on regular life,” she said at the event.
Ms. John noted she was unaware of this CrPC Section being used as “creatively” as had been highlighted in the report.
“Time has come for us to revisit it in the court. Because this is not a power with any judicial oversight and scrutiny. This is a completely executive power,” she said.
