Not public interest, it’s political interest litigation, SAD tells HC ›

After the HC orders of December 8, more than 1,500 party workers have been booked, many of whom were to contest in MC polls. In one case, 2 persons, who are in Italy and not even citizens of India, were booked. HS BRAR, counsel, Shiromani Akali Dal

CHANDIGARH:THE Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) on Wednesday alleged before the Punjab and Haryana high court that a public interest litigation (PIL), which led to court terming agitations without deputy commissioners’ nod illegal, was “politically motivated” and “served” the interest of ruling Congress.

Though a written statement was not filed, advocate HS Brar, who appeared for the Akali Dal said that after the high court orders of December 8, more than 1,500 party workers have been booked by state authorities, many of those who were to contest in the MC elections. In one case, two persons have been booked who are in Italy and are not even citizens of India, Brar told the court, adding that to win MC polls, the high court orders have been “misused” and government has tried to book most of the SAD leaders so that they do not face any opposition in municipal polls. “It is not a public interest litigation. It is a political interest litigation filed at the behest of the Congress,” Brar told the court.

On December 8, any protest dharnas without the permission of deputy commissioners were termed illegal by the high court, acting on a PIL filed by a HC lawyer.

The court also asked the state to impose prohibitory orders wherever required. The high court had acted on a plea against blockades by Akali leaders in Ferozepur. The orders on December 8 were passed as state admitted that situation is “grave” and that blockades could hinder stoppage of the essential supply of commodities.

During the hearing on Wednesday, the high court bench observed that it was not bothered about any political party and its interests, but common man should not suffer due to agitations. It also asked Punjab advocate general Atul Nanda as to why sate did not chose for invoking provisions of law on damage to public property.

To this, Nanda clarified that the government wanted to take preventive measures and focus was on prevention of damage to property. “Otherwise, we won’t achieve any purpose by booking certain people after property is damaged,” he said.

Later, the high court clubbed this petition with the one pending on similar protest announced by the farmers in November 2016 and observed that a mechanism should be developed to deal with such protests and adjourned matter for January 11.