The Tis Hazari Court of Delhi has adjourned Bhim Army Chief, Chandrashekhar Azad’s application challenging the bail conditions imposed on him directing him to leave Delhi for 4 weeks in lieu of the upcoming elections. The next hearing is scheduled for January 21, 2020.
The Court on January 15, 2020 had directed Azad to leave Delhi for 4 weeks. Additional Sessions Judge, Kamini Lau had said she “does not want any interference with the elections.” The Court further said that Azad had to mark his presence with SHO in Saharanpur every Saturday for the next 4 weeks.
The Court had earlier that day reserved its’ order on Chandrashekhar Azad’s bail plea. He was in custody regarding the Daryaganj Violence case. Delhi Police contended that the permission for a dharna was sought but not given.
The Court in the earlier hearing had censured the Delhi Police for failing to show any proof against Azad while hearing his bail application on January 14, 2020. While hearing the case, Judge Kamini Lau had observed that individuals are out on the streets since ‘things which ought to have been said inside Parliament were not said.’
She had questioned the Delhi police and stated, “You are carrying on as if Jama Masjid is Pakistan. Regardless of whether it was Pakistan, you can go there and fight. Pakistan was a piece of unified India.”
Mr. Azad was sent to judicial custody on December 21, 2019 by a Delhi Court. The court asked the investigation officials to put all proof against Azad that demonstrated the charge that he was giving provocative speeches at an event in Jama Masjid. Accordingly, the provision stated, “We have drone footage and also evidences showing Azad giving an inflammatory speech.”
Nonetheless, the police told the court they have just drone pictures as proof and no other chronicle. In light of absence of proof, the judge stated, “Do you think Delhi police is so backward that it has no tools to record anything?”
The judge hammered Delhi Police for the clampdown on the dissent and stated, “Give me anything or any law that restricts such assembling. Where is the brutality? Who says you can't dissent? Have you perused the Constitution? It is one's Constitutional right to dissent.”
The court had additionally observed that Azad, having a law degree, could likewise dissent inside the courts and noticed that Azad’s Ambedkarite reasoning presumably required more research. The Court had opined, “Azad is probably an Ambedkarite. Ambedkar was closer to the Muslims, Sikhs and basically the repressed class of the society... He was a rebel of his own kind. Probably Azad has a vague idea of what he wants to say but probably not able to put it across. If you take up an issue, you do your research. And that is missing!”
