top of page

By:

Quaid Najmi

4 January 2025 at 8:56:24 pm

HC denies shield to anti-CEC protesters

Court says it will intervene if specific illegalities are brought to its notice Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to pass blanket orders against police detentions of people protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while assuring that it would take action if specific illegalities are brought before it. The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sagar Devre, who alleged that Mumbai police illegally detained hundreds of peaceful demonstrators,...

HC denies shield to anti-CEC protesters

Court says it will intervene if specific illegalities are brought to its notice Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to pass blanket orders against police detentions of people protesting against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while assuring that it would take action if specific illegalities are brought before it. The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Sagar Devre, who alleged that Mumbai police illegally detained hundreds of peaceful demonstrators, including women and students, who took out marches in solidarity with agitations in the national capital over the weekend. Advocate Manish Tomar, representing the petitioner, urged the court to issue an interim order restraining the police from making further detentions during peaceful demonstrations. A division bench, however, declined the plea for a general stay on police action.
Court’s Assurance "We cannot pass a blanket order saying no person shall be detained. You point out if there is any such instance, we will take care. We will not permit anything wrong," the court observed. Additional Government Pleader Manish Upadhye sought time to seek instructions from the concerned authorities on the claims made in the petition. Accepting the request, the high court adjourned the matter and posted the plea for further hearing on October 19. Devre's plea sought protection of the fundamental rights of citizens, peaceful demonstrators, lawyers and others in connection with the protests in the national capital against the CEC. Terming it as an issue involving the fundamental right of people, the PIL said it was filed to protect a simple freedom of every Mumbai resident citizens – to walk freely on the city roads, to stand peacefully with others, or to stay in one’s home “without being lifted and carried away” by the police without an individual reason. It mentioned how students were allegedly picked up from their homes in connection with protest cases dating back to July 2026, which the petition said had already been quashed by the Supreme Court. Making it clear that the challenge was not against the police’s legal authority to regulate public assemblies or the political positions taken by protesters, the petitioner claimed it was to question the practice of detaining people without individualised, lawful and recorded reasons, or using previously quashed cases and past detentions against them. Invoking Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, the plea argued that coercive action based merely on a person's association, appearance on a list, previous detention or presence in a public place would amount to arbitrary state action. It further contended that a quashed FIR could not be used as a continuing basis for hostile discriminatory treatment as a ‘permanent mark’ against a citizen since "a quashed FIR is no FIR at all”. The PIL seeks the court's declaration as 'unconstitutional' the sweeping detention of peaceful demonstrators, pedestrians and others without lawful individual justification. It seeks an independent inquiry into the alleged police excesses, preservation of CCTV footage, police records, a verified list of the detenus and framing of standard operating procedures to govern policing action during mass-protests. Long detentions The petitioner contended that the detentions went beyond the demonstrators to include bystanders and passers-by, among them women, a mother with a child and a senior citizen. Among those detained included Mahatma Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Arun Gandhi, his daughter Kasturi, actor Imran Khan, activists Feroze Mithiborwala, S. L. Guddi, scores of youth and students, though they were released after several hours of detention by various police stations.

Dangerous Departures

Oct 29, 2024
2 min read

Updated: Oct 30, 2024

Dangerous Departures

In yet another shocking incident adding to Mumbai’s infamous tryst with stampedes, chaos erupted at Mumbai’s Bandra Terminus following a weekend stampede that left at least ten persons injured, two critically so. A crowd surged toward the Gorakhpur-bound train with nearly 1,500 people vying for seats in 22 unreserved compartments, leading to the stampede. Several others narrowly avoided tragedy, with some even pushed onto the tracks. This is not a unique episode but rather a recurring theme in Mumbai’s bedevilled crowd management, one that has haunted the city’s public spaces, particularly as festive seasons magnify the crowds.


Mumbai is no stranger to stampedes. A horrifying incident in 2017 at Elphinstone Road Station left 23 people dead and nearly 50 injured. The cause was a familiar one: an overwhelming crowd confined to a narrow footbridge during peak rush hour. The tragedy sparked an outcry, with promises from authorities to upgrade infrastructure and enhance safety protocols. Yet seven years on, crowd-related incidents continue to be a constant danger. Today’s incident reveals a similar lapse—a lack of foresight in managing the thousands who gather on platforms ahead of Diwali, eager to return to family. That the Gorakhpur Express was unreserved and heavily crowded was predictable.


The issue lies beyond simply crowd density; it is emblematic of deeper systemic negligence. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), responsible for local public safety, along with the Railways Ministry, bear responsibility for ensuring order at such high-risk hubs. Although the BMC acknowledged the “festive rush,” it appears little was done to pre-empt it. Swift action could have been taken to either disperse the crowd or reroute passengers. Instead, chaos prevailed.


Political reaction has been swift but uninspiring. Aaditya Thackeray, son of Uddhav Thackeray, launched a scathing attack on the Union Railways Minister, Ashwini Vaishnaw, branding the incident a result of the minister’s “incapable” leadership. This hardly addresses the immediate need: a substantive plan to manage crowds and prevent similar incidents.


Mumbai’s transport infrastructure remains sorely outdated. Platforms are undersized, signalling systems frequently falter, and crowd control mechanisms are grossly inadequate. Despite repeated accidents, there has been little investment in comprehensive crowd management systems or the deployment of personnel trained in emergency response. While railway footbridges were widened after the Elphinstone tragedy, Bandra’s incident demonstrates that such incremental changes are insufficient. Mumbai, which sees a swelling populace during festivals, demands a robust strategy to address its vulnerabilities. This should include technology-driven crowd monitoring, clear communication channels to inform passengers of platform conditions, and additional security and medical staff on high-demand days. It is essential that crowd management training for personnel becomes a priority rather than a reaction to tragedies.

Comments


bottom of page