Police questions Pracha for questioning over October protest against Pakistan

Pracha, who represents at least 80 accused and victims in the north-east Delhi riots cases, describe the police summon in the protest case as harassment.

The Delhi police on Monday questioned lawyer Mehmood Pracha for allegedly violating social distancing norms during a protest outside the Pakistan High Commission in October even as the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) condemned Thursday’s police raid on the lawyer’s office in connection with another case as a “malicious act”.

Lawyer Mehmood Pracha (MehmoodPracha/ Twitter)

Pracha, who represents at least 80 accused and victims in the north-east Delhi riots cases, describe the police summon in the protest case as harassment. “I told them that they should be happy that I protested against the ill treatment of minorities in Pakistan. The police officers who questioned me for over one and a half hours said that I should stop protesting against Pakistan. It made no sense. I could not make head or tail of what my crime was. It is clear that police are harassing me,” he said.

“First, my office was raided by the special cell on Thursday. They then registered a case against me at Hazrat Nizamuddin police station. And today (Monday), they summoned me at Chanakapuri. It is clearly their way of harassing me for speaking the truth and fighting the riot cases. They did not even give me a copy of the FIR (Chanakyapuri police station case), they have registered against me for protesting,” he added.

Around 4pm on Monday, Pracha tweeted a photograph showing him outside the Chanakyapuri police station. He tweeted, “ Entering PS Chanakyapuri on the dot.”

Police said on October 3, a protest was organised at Teen Murti in Chanakyapuri without police permission. Accordingly, a case under section 188 (Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) of IPC was registered at the Chanakyapuri police station against Pracha, the organiser of the protest.

Deputy commissioner of police (New Delhi) Eish Singhal said, “A notice was served to the organiser (Pracha) for recording his statement in the case at the police station.”

A police officer associated with the case said Pracha’s statement was recorded on Monday afternoon and stayed in the station for about 15 minutes.

Last Thursday, confusion and controversy had surrounded the raid by police’s special cell at Pracha’s office. After the raid, Pracha accused police of assaulting him and stealing data from his office. He had also filed a complaint against the police team at Hazrat Nizamuddin police station. Police are yet to act on his complaint.

Delhi police have maintained that they had obtained a warrant and had searched his place, during which Pracha got violent and did not cooperate. The raid, police said, was in connection with a case registered on August 22, after one of the riot victims told a court that the lawyer has asked him to fake a deposition and frame three people in riot cases.

Reacting to the raid on Monday, the SCBA and the Bar Association of India (BAI) condemned police action by issuing separate statements. The SCBA described the raid as a “malicious act that defeats the rights of an advocate to practice his profession without fear or favour.”

It emphasised that the seizures of confidential information that is protected by “lawyer-client privilege”, in a search conducted by the very police authorities who are prosecuting Pracha’s clients, will prejudicially affect the rights and guarantees of the accused. “It is illegal and contravenes all cannons of protection to a client and his lawyer,” read the statement.

It also questioned the manner in which a magistrate had issued the warrant of search and seizure, saying exercise of authority of the court in such a “routine, mechanical manner” is antithetical to rule of law and constitutes a disturbing violation of this privilege directly affecting the administration of justice.

In its statement, the BAI also implored the judiciary to be mindful of the importance of attorney-client privilege in such matters.

“The issuing of a search warrant in respect of a lawyer’s communication and correspondence is a grave violation of client-attorney privilege, and can cause a chilling effect in clients providing true and complete disclosures to their lawyers, and would impede the administration of justice”, said the BAI.