10 TMC members discharged in case linked to protest outside ECI despite Section 144. Delhi Police alleged protest held without permission; detailed court order awaited.
![[Post-Poll Violence] Calcutta HC Seeks Alternative Venue for Suvendu Adhikari's Planned Dharna Outside Raj Bhavan](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image-8-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 19th June, The Calcutta High Court challenged Suvendu Adhikari’s plan for a protest and suggested an alternate venue, aiming to balance the right to protest with maintaining public order. Adhikari’s counsel argued for the protest at Raj Bhavan, but the court directed them to propose an alternative venue by the next hearing on June 21. The court also instructed the Advocate General to address previous violations of prohibitory orders.
Asaduddin Owaisi, the AIMIM chief, urged the Telangana government to implement the Prevention of Communal Riots Bill to prevent communal violence. He emphasized unbiased policing and accountability for those inciting violence. Owaisi highlighted the need for a legal framework to prevent communal tensions and violence, aiming for a more inclusive and peaceful society.
Today(on 19th April), The Supreme Court of India intervened to ensure prompt review of voter awareness rally applications amidst widespread Section 144 imposition. This came after activist Aruna Roy’s petition highlighted the blanket Section 144 orders stifling voter education efforts. Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta issued a directive to safeguard democratic processes, mandating a three-day application resolution.
BJP State Unit in Kolkata Approaches High Court After Police Deny Permission for Sit-In Protest Against Alleged Sexual Harassment and Violence Kolkata: The state unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has sought legal recourse after Kolkata Police denied permission for a sit-in protest scheduled from February 27 against the reported incidents of sexual harassment […]
The Delhi High Court questions Aam Aadmi Party’s protest under Section 144, prompting withdrawal of petition. Concerns over floodgates and right to protest violation emphasized. AAP planned protest against inflated water bills and hindrances to settlement scheme, citing police denial as a violation of constitutional right to protest. Fate of protest remains uncertain.