Around 80 Delhi Police personnel protested outside their headquarters on November 2 against the transfer of two officers following a scuffle at Shahdara police station.
AISA president Neha Bora questioned whether Section 163 of the BNSS, which restricts assemblies under prohibitory orders, would be enforced against the protesting personnel.
Her remarks recalled Delhi Police's detention of CJP members and other protesters, including preventive proceedings initiated against Bora under Sections 126 and 169 of the BNSS.
Does Section 163 Apply To Police Too? Neha Bora Questions Delhi Police Over Protest Outside HQ
Reacting to the demonstration, Bora questioned whether the police would initiate criminal proceedings against their own colleagues for assembling in an area where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are in force
Summary
The sight of Delhi Police personnel protesting outside their own headquarters on Monday has prompted a pointed question from All India Students’ Association (AISA) president Neha Bora: Does the law restricting public demonstrations apply to the police as well?
Around 80 Delhi Police personnel assembled outside Gate No. 1 of the Delhi Police Headquarters (PHQ) in New Delhi on November 2 to protest against the transfer of two officers following a scuffle at Shahdara police station. The personnel were demanding an opportunity to meet the Police Commissioner and raise their grievances over the transfers.
Reacting to the demonstration, Bora questioned whether the police would initiate criminal proceedings against their own colleagues for assembling in an area where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) are in force.
In a post on X, she wrote: “Delhi Police HQ falls in an area of New Delhi where Section 163 BNSS is imposed. Will Delhi Police register an FIR against Delhi Police who are angry with Delhi Police?”
Section 163 And The Question Of Equal Application
Section 163 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue urgent orders to prevent potential threats to public tranquillity, safety and law and order.
Such orders can prohibit assemblies, processions, demonstrations and other activities considered likely to cause a disturbance. In the New Delhi district, prohibitory orders have been invoked repeatedly during protests over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's resignation.
The question raised by Bora is whether police personnel are exempt from such restrictions merely because they belong to the force responsible for enforcing them.
CJP Protests And Preventive Action Against Demonstrators
Bora's criticism comes against the backdrop of Delhi Police's action against protesters, including members of the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), during demonstrations against the Election Commission.
Advertisement
On October 16, police detained more than 100 people, including CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke and Bora, as protesters attempted to organise a Tiranga march in Connaught Place and surrounding areas. The police cited prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS and restrictions on demonstrations at non-designated protest locations.
Preventive proceedings were also initiated against Bora under Sections 126 and 169 of the BNSS. Section 126 empowers an Executive Magistrate to require a person to execute a bond for maintaining peace when there is information suggesting a likelihood of a breach of public tranquillity.
CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka also faced preventive proceedings and spent time in judicial custody following an earlier protest. Their cases brought renewed scrutiny to the use of preventive provisions against political activists.
Published At: