<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned “lack of professionalism and independence” in Delhi police in containing violence in the national capital on citizenship law, expressing its anguish over deaths of people in "unfortunate incidents" in last two days.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph decided to defer its hearing on plea for removal of Shaheen Bagh protesters, to March 23.</p>.<p>"Let's defer it for the time being. Environment is not conducive at the moment. Equanimity needs to be maintained," the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench also asked the political parties to help in lowering the temperature. The court also pointed out it repeatedly said that the protesters have a right to protest but they cannot block the roads. “We have tried out-of-box solutions by appointing interlocutors who tried hard to persuade the protesters,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The court asked interlocutors senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Sadhna Ramachandran to continue their efforts.</p>.<p>As soon as the matter began, the bench refused to entertain plea by Bhim Army Chief Chandra Shekhar Azad and former CIC Wajahat Habibullah for registration of FIR against former Delhi MLA Kapil Mishra for his alleged provocative remark.</p>.<p>"We don't want to expand scope of the petition related to removal of Shaheen Bagh protesters," the bench said.</p>.<p>"What has happened is unfortunate, it should not have happened. The HC is already seized up of the matter," the bench added.</p>.<p>During the hearing on petitions by advocate Amit Sahni and BJP national executive member Nand Kishore Garg, the bench said there was a lack of professionalism and independence in police. They should have acted the moment some inflammatory statement was made.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the bench not to make such observations.</p>.<p>Justice Joseph, however, said if he did not speak, he would be failing in discharge of his constitutional duty, since as many as 13 persons have lost their lives. The bench cited the Prakash Singh judgement (2006) to make police independent of executive control.</p>.<p>To this, Mehta said, "Let's not demoralise police at this juncture. We don't know under what circumstances police are functioning. A head constable lost his life. The DCP was almost lynched."</p>.<p>"These things happen because when you let people (those who make incindiary speeches) go away," Justice Joseph said.</p>.<p>"If police started acting as done in England (London bridge incident in November 2019, where attacker, who stabbed five people, was shot dead by the police after having been disarmed), the court would be the first to intervene," Mehta said</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned “lack of professionalism and independence” in Delhi police in containing violence in the national capital on citizenship law, expressing its anguish over deaths of people in "unfortunate incidents" in last two days.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph decided to defer its hearing on plea for removal of Shaheen Bagh protesters, to March 23.</p>.<p>"Let's defer it for the time being. Environment is not conducive at the moment. Equanimity needs to be maintained," the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench also asked the political parties to help in lowering the temperature. The court also pointed out it repeatedly said that the protesters have a right to protest but they cannot block the roads. “We have tried out-of-box solutions by appointing interlocutors who tried hard to persuade the protesters,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The court asked interlocutors senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Sadhna Ramachandran to continue their efforts.</p>.<p>As soon as the matter began, the bench refused to entertain plea by Bhim Army Chief Chandra Shekhar Azad and former CIC Wajahat Habibullah for registration of FIR against former Delhi MLA Kapil Mishra for his alleged provocative remark.</p>.<p>"We don't want to expand scope of the petition related to removal of Shaheen Bagh protesters," the bench said.</p>.<p>"What has happened is unfortunate, it should not have happened. The HC is already seized up of the matter," the bench added.</p>.<p>During the hearing on petitions by advocate Amit Sahni and BJP national executive member Nand Kishore Garg, the bench said there was a lack of professionalism and independence in police. They should have acted the moment some inflammatory statement was made.</p>.<p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the bench not to make such observations.</p>.<p>Justice Joseph, however, said if he did not speak, he would be failing in discharge of his constitutional duty, since as many as 13 persons have lost their lives. The bench cited the Prakash Singh judgement (2006) to make police independent of executive control.</p>.<p>To this, Mehta said, "Let's not demoralise police at this juncture. We don't know under what circumstances police are functioning. A head constable lost his life. The DCP was almost lynched."</p>.<p>"These things happen because when you let people (those who make incindiary speeches) go away," Justice Joseph said.</p>.<p>"If police started acting as done in England (London bridge incident in November 2019, where attacker, who stabbed five people, was shot dead by the police after having been disarmed), the court would be the first to intervene," Mehta said</p>
