New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Thursday agreed to hear on Friday a plea by Indian Youth Congress (IYC) seeking permission to hold a protest against chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at Jantar Mantar over alleged irregularities in the SIR exercise.The plea was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench of acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma. HC told the petitioner’s counsel that in case it does not happen Friday, they can again mention the matter.IYC, through its national president Uday Bhanu Chib, had on Oct 3 approached HC challenging Delhi Police’s Oct 1 communication denying them permission to organise a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar. The petition had invoked fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.“The proposed demonstration arises out of concerns regarding transparency, accountability and functioning of constitutional institutions, and was proposed as a peaceful exercise of the petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms,” it said.IYC had on Sept 25 applied to Delhi Police for a peaceful demonstration of 100-150 persons from Oct 1 to Oct 25. It said it had undertaken to comply with all lawful conditions concerning security, traffic, discipline and public order, but permission was rejected.“The petitioner does not dispute that the State is entitled to regulate assemblies in the interests of public order, traffic management, public safety and the rights of residents and other members of the public. The challenge, however, is to the manner and extent of such regulation.“A power to regulate a fundamental right cannot be converted into an unfettered power to prohibit its exercise. The constitutional requirement is one of reasonable regulation, individualised assessment and proportionality, and not mechanical refusal,” the petition said.It said the cause of action is not merely the refusal of a particular permission, but concerns the constitutional limits upon administrative discretion when a state authority regulates the exercise of fundamental freedoms.The plea sought quashing of the Oct 1 communication of police and directions for fresh and lawful consideration of the petitioner’s request.
