Former CJI UU Lalit while speaking as a member of a panel discussion on the launch of a report ‘The Use and Misuse of Section 144 CrPC: An empirical analysis of all the orders passed in 2021 in Delhi’ raised concern over mechanical and routine use of Sec 144 of CrPC in Delhi. He quoted, “What is seen is that if ends are acceptable then means may be anything necessary, which is not something that is done within rule of law. I was not aware that 144 can be used like this. Is the courier noting down your details a part of 144? Can it be the route? You are conferring upon executives or police drastic powers. This kind of exercise is not something acceptable straight away in a democracy. 6,100 orders in Delhi in one year! This pattern that emerges is, to say the least, quite disturbing. Power cannot be utilised for a purpose not conferred.”
The report was based on the analysis of over 6100 orders from which around 5400 orders passed under Section 144 powers, were used to regulate non-emergency affairs. The orders were related to non-emergency things like calling for couriers needing to note details of senders and receivers, mandatory CCTVs, and even regulating the sale of a certain medicine. “This report is an eye-opener for me and everyone in society. We would want rule of law governing our everyday affairs, authority must exercise power as per law. This report is shocking.” he further commented.
“If someone earlier told me that for mundane affairs there could be 144 orders, I would have laughed it off. First time I have seen it. Here what I see is, as a student of law, Section 144 is always taken to be an emergency power with authorities like DM, and police during certain flare-up situations, to curb tempers getting ignited. Extraordinary emergency power and the right to pass ex parte orders, [is something that] demands very urgent steps. That is the sum and substance and contours of the power. One goes by that use of power will be conditioned by corners of these emergencies.” He further added.
Section 144 of the CrPC States the Power to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
(1.) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Governmont on this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain ordeconcerningto certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the publitranquillityty, or a riot, of an affray.
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte.