Wangchuk and others have been on a foot march from Leh to Delhi to demand sixth Schedule for Ladakh, which was carved out of the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir as a Union Territory in 2019.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Delhi Police to a plea seeking permission for Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk and others to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar in national capital.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma asked the authorities to respond to the plea by October 16 and ordered listing of the case on October 22.
The case was listed today following a mentioning for urgent listing.
“We couldn’t read the whole thing [petition copy]… we have only seen the prayer. We will seek response from Delhi Police,” the Court said.
Apex Body Leh, an organisation based in Ladakh, moved the High Court seeking directions to the Delhi government and Delhi Police to allow Wangchuk and others, who came to the national capital on foot, to hold a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar from October 8 to October 23.
The protesters had started from Leh on September 1 to raise awareness about the “ecological and cultural collapse” in Ladakh. Their main demand has been Sixth Schedule for the Union Territory which was carved out of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution provides for implementation of measures to have an autonomous administration in tribal areas to protect the rights and identity of locals. At present, it is applicable only to Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram in northeast India.
However, on reaching near Delhi, Wangchuk and others were detained at Singhu Border on September 30. They were later released.
Meanwhile, they had sought permission to hold protest at Jantar Mantar. The Delhi Police on October 5 turned down the body’s request for holding the protest at Jantar Mantar.
During the hearing of the plea today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said there can be no urgency on proceeding on a fast or dharna. He opposed the request for early listing of the matter.
“There cannot be any urgency for proceeding on any fast or dharna,” Mehta submitted.
Challenging the police decision, the body argued that denial of permission to hold peaceful protest violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly.
