Reconsider security withdrawal to Ram Janmabhoomi case lawyer, HC tells Delhi Police

Justice Rekha Palli, who was hearing a petition against the withdrawal by lawyer R P Mehrotra -- who represented the Centre and the Archaeological Survey of India in the case, granted two weeks to the police to reconsider the decision and place its report as well as the original records before the court.

New Delhi:The Delhi High Court Monday asked Delhi police to reconsider its decision to withdraw the personal security provided to a lawyer involved in a case concerning the Ram Janmabhoomi before the Allahabad High Court.

Justice Rekha Palli, who was hearing a petition against the withdrawal by lawyer R P Mehrotra -- who represented the Centre and the Archaeological Survey of India in the case, granted two weeks to the police to reconsider the decision and place its report as well as the original records before the court.

Listing the matter for further hearing on November 15, the judge orally asked Delhi Police counsel to “ask them (police) to start giving one security (personal) for the present”.

“Before the petition is considered on merit, it is deemed appropriate to direct respondent no 2 (Delhi Police) to reconsider its decision within two weeks from today. While reconsidering, respondent no 2 will also consider the petitioner's averment that similarly placed advocates are still getting the same security and the threat perception may not have disappeared,” the court ordered.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the petitioner, said that police protection was given to the lawyer pursuant a direction passed by the Allahabad High Court in September 2013.

In spite of the high court's direction that it cannot be lifted, the authorities withdrew the security cover based on a factually incorrect premise that Mehrotra represented a certain Hindu organisation in the case instead of the official parties, he said.

Luthra further objected to the police's stand of no “threat perception” presently against Mehrotra and highlighted that the decision for withdrawal was based on the opinion of a “legal advisor” when other similarly placed lawyers from the case were still being given the security as directed by the Allahabad High Court.

Delhi Police counsel Sameer Vashisht told the court that “security can't be in perpetuity” and the petitioner may provide some proof to show the existence of threat in order to assist the authorities.

In its petition, the petitioner said that since 2013, personal security was being provided to him in view of the specific directions issued by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which was withdrawn by the Delhi Police in December 2020.

The petitioner claimed that the withdrawal was without any notice and was wholly arbitrary and unjustified as it overlooked the fact that the threat from certain organisations, on the basis of which the security cover was granted in the first instance, was still continuing.

The court had issued notice on the petition in August.

PTI