The Delhi High Court today sought response from the Centre and city government on a plea over the issue of grant of sanction to prosecute former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Law Minister Somnath Bharti for alleged "anarchy" created by their party in January this year during a protest against actions of certain police officials.
Justice Vibhu Bakhru issued notices to the governments seeking their reply on whether Kejriwal and Bharti can be prosecuted or punished for sending allegedly offensive messages through SMS under the IT Act and for their statements during the protest.
The court has now fixed November 9 for further hearing in the matter.
The court was hearing the petition filed by teacher Ajay Gautam, who has alleged that Kejriwal had violated the law of the land by staging a dharna and defying Section 144 of CrPC near Rail Bhawan on January 21 this year.
The plea asked whether this type of "hooliganism" of blocking of public roads, metro stations by the then executive and members of the then ruling political party - Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) - should be allowed in a civilised society in the name of agitation.
Gautam said the general public suffered due to the protest. He alleged that Kejriwal and his party workers also tried to put his life in danger by trying to provoke him through an SMS to join the protest against Delhi Police in an area where section 144 of CrPC had already been imposed.
The protest came after Kejriwal's meeting on January 17 with the then Union Home Minister, demanding the suspension of three SHOs of the Delhi police, primarily for disobeying the then Delhi Law Minister Somnath Bharti's orders to search, without warrant, the premises of some Ugandan women whom he had accused of running a drug and prostitution racket, the petition has said.
It has further said that Kejriwal had threatened the then Home Minister with a dharna against him from January 20 if the police officers were not suspended.
The petitioner said he approached the high court after the trial court and the city government failed to pass any order in relation to his pleas for prosecuting both and grant of sanction for it.
