Delhi High Court’s Decision on Protest Plea
The Delhi High Court, in a recent session on Wednesday, decided not to expedite the listing of a plea submitted by the Kshatriya Karni Sena. This plea was in response to the Delhi Police’s denial of permission for the group to conduct a protest at Jantar Mantar on September 20 against reservation policies and the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, 2026.
Details of the Court Proceedings
A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia presided over the matter. They instructed the Kshatriya Karni Sena to file their petition formally, after which it would be scheduled for consideration the following day.
Background of the Protest Request
The Kshatriya Karni Sena initially planned to hold their demonstration on September 6. However, their request was denied by the Delhi Police on August 28. The denial was issued due to ongoing preparations for the BRICS Summit in the city, which necessitated heightened security and resource allocation.
Legal Actions and Court Instructions
Following the refusal, Dr. Raj Shekhawat, the president of the Kshatriya Karni Sena, approached the Delhi High Court to contest the police’s decision. When the case was presented before Justice Amit Mahajan on September 3, the court advised the petitioner to consider rescheduling the protest.
Subsequent Developments and Judicial Guidance
In response, the organization opted to postpone their protest to September 20. On September 7, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma directed the Delhi Police to review a new application for the rescheduled protest and to communicate their decision by September 14. The court also noted that the police could impose suitable conditions on the protest if required.
Current Plea and Judicial Deliberations
The current plea challenges the Delhi Police’s subsequent refusal to grant permission for the September 20 protest. The legal proceedings surrounding this issue continue to unfold, with the court yet to make a final decision on the matter. The case highlights the ongoing tensions between civic rights to protest and governmental responsibilities in ensuring public order and safety.
