JAMA MASJID NOT IN PAK: COURT SLAMS DELHI POLICE

People are out on streets as what should have been said inside Parliament was "not said", a court observed here on Tuesday as it pulled up the Delhi police after it failed to show any evidence against Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad who has been accused of inciting people during an anti-CAA protest at Jama Masjid on December 20.

Asserting that it is one's constitutional right to protest, the court, which was hearing Azad's bail plea, also observed that Delhi Police was behaving "as if Jama Masjid was Pakistan".

During the hearing, Additional Public Prosecutor Pankaj Bhatia, appearing for the police, opposed the bail plea, saying Azad had given inflammatory speeches at the premises of Jama Masjid inciting the gathering to carry out violent protests in the area against the amended Citizenship Act.

"Inside Parliament, things which should have been said were not said and that is why people are out on the streets. We have full right to express our views but we cannot destroy our country. We cannot disintegrate it," Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau said.

When the judge asked what evidence they had to prove the allegations against Azad, the counsel referred to social media posts of the Bhim Army Chief wherein he calls people to come to Jama Masjid and sit in 'dharna' (protest).

To this, the judge asked, "What is the problem with going to Jama Masjid? What is wrong with 'dharna'? It is one's constitutional right to protest. Where is the violence? What is wrong with any of these posts? Have you read the Constitution?" "You are behaving as if Jama Masjid was Pakistan and even if it was Pakistan, you can go there and protest. Pakistan was a part of undivided India," the judge said.

The court asked the investigating officer of the police to put on record all the evidence which showed that Azad was allegedly giving inflammatory speeches at the gathering at Jama Masjid and any law which showed that the gathering there was unconstitutional.

It has put up the matter for further hearing on Wednesday. When Bhatia said that permission was required to hold such protests, the judge remarked, "What permission? Even the Supreme Court has said repeated use of Section 144 (prohibition of gathering of five or more persons, holding of public meetings, and carrying of firearms) of the Indian Penal Code was an abuse of the law .... "I have seen many people and many such cases, where protests happened even outside Parliament. Many of them are chief ministers now. Azad is a budding politician, what is wrong with his protests?"