High Court Issues Notices To Delhi, Cops Over Bomb Threats In Schools
The Delhi High Court on Thursday issued notices to government's chief secretary and police in the capital after a plea alleged failure on their part in formulating a comprehensive mechanism to combat emergent situations such as bomb threats in schools.
Justice Anish Dayal called it a serious issue, saying it required the urgent attention of authorities especially when repeated hoax calls had become very common and troubled children, their parents and schools.
The plea before Justice Dayal claimed authorities were in contempt of the court's November 14 2024 order which directed them to develop a comprehensive action plan with a detailed standard operating procedure (SOP) to address such concerns.
The directions required the government agencies and police to develop the mechanism within eight weeks of the issuance.
On Thursday, the court sought an update on the matter and posted the hearing on May 19, when government and police officials were asked to remain present.
In his plea, petitioner advocate Arpit Bhargava alleged inaction and negligent approach of Delhi government and Delhi Police in addressing the recurring bomb threat emails received by schools in the capital.
He claimed the eight-week period got over on January 14, 2025, but there was no intimation on either the formulation or implementation of any detailed action plan or SoP in line with the court order.
Advocate Beenashaw N Soni, representing Bhargava, underlined an "apparent" disregard of the court orders by authorities and ineptness in acting in larger public interest.
She said the court's directions were aimed at ensuring safety and security of school children and educational institutions in the event of bomb threats or similar emergencies.
"Continued failure of the contemnors/respondents to implement the directions of this court has left the school ecosystem across Delhi vulnerable to the recurring menace of bomb threats," the petitioner argued.
The contempt plea went on, "These threats, regardless of their actual veracity, create an environment of fear and panic among children, teachers, and parents. The lack of a standardised response protocol and preventive measures directly endangers the safety and mental health of lakhs of school going children in the capital." Seeking coercive steps in line with Contempt of Court Act, the plea sought the court to impose punitive cost of litigation in favour of the petitioner and against authorities.
The SOP, the high court in November 2024 said, should clearly outline the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, school management and municipal authorities ensuring seamless coordination and implementation.
Hoax threats, particularly those perpetrated through sophisticated methods such as the dark web and VPNs, were not unique to Delhi or even India and they were a global problem which continued to challenge the law enforcement agencies worldwide, it added.
Delhi Police previously revealed the presence of five bomb disposal squads and 18 bomb detection teams for over 4,600 schools in the capital.
The petitioner initially approached the court in 2023 in the wake of a hoax bomb threat to the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Udaipur Files': SC declines to extend stay on release, says those against it can approach Delhi HC
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to extend the stay on release of the film Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder and told those objecting to it to approach the Delhi High Court for any further relief. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared for those opposing its release, that they can approach the high court if they want to challenge the order by the expert committee set up by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry to review the certificate granted to the movie by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The committee, set up following an order of the Delhi High Court, had recommended allowing the release subject to certain changes, including a new disclaimer. While Sibal was appearing for Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind president Maulana Arshad Madani, Guruswamy was appearing for Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the Kanhaiya Lal murder case. 'We have not touched the merits…We will pass an order asking the high court to take it up on Monday…Whatever arguments you have to make, go to high court,' the bench said. As the counsel for those objecting to the release sought a stay in the meanwhile, Justice Kant said, 'meanwhile nothing.' Appearing for the filmmakers, senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia opposed the request for extending the stay ordered by the high court. 'What is happening is very peculiar. This is my SLP [special leave petition] challenging the stay. Can they ask for stay in my SLP when they have a legal remedy before the HC?' Bhatia asked. The court pointed out that it had not granted any stay. Sibal said, 'I am not disputing that. In any case he can't screen the movie after tomorrow. You have to get 1,800 cinema halls.' Another counsel urged the bench, 'Your Lordships need only say HC will hear it on Monday. Meanwhile, the movie will not be screened, that is all.' The bench, however, did not agree. Bhatia referred to the objections raised in the past to the release of the film, Kerala Story, and the Supreme Court subsequently allowing its release. 'Every time the SC has allowed release. Let them go to HC. The HC will give them a detailed hearing. If there is a case made out for a stay, the HC will grant them. Why should this court, where I am the aggrieved party, pass an interim order stopping the release of the movie?' he said. Bhatia added, 'All preparations at my end are being done. I have lost 12 days already. I have abided by every instruction…Now today they couldn't make out a case. The revisional authority has passed an order. It would not be appropriate for Your Lordships to grant relief to them at this juncture.' Pointing out that around 1,200 screens had been blocked to screen the film, Bhatia said, 'And what are we encouraging Your Lordship? Is that question not relevant? Any person…comes forward, says I am aggrieved, my feelings are hurt. Can there be a …movie which will not hurt the sentiments of anyone? And then there are orders passed by the HC. A special screening was done for them. 55 plus 6 plus disclaimer edited by them…Now any further stay would be unfair.' The CBFC had ordered 55 cuts and the committee constituted by the Centre had recommended six further changes in addition to a new disclaimer. A counsel backing demands for its release said that no one was vilified even when films like Kashmir Files were released. 'The argument is this film will vilify the community and jeopardise the social fabric of the country. Earlier also similar arguments were made…Did any incident happen after the Kashmir Files? Was any Muslim targeted? Was the community vilified? Were even Kashmiri Muslims targeted?' he submitted. 'Madani should understand that the social fabric of the country was not harmed even after Pahalgam. It was not harmed after 26/11, or after the actual incident of Udaipur, or after Kashmir Files, or after Kerala Story. If it was harmed, it should be part of their petition. It is not. Their vilification theory and hate story is a figment of imagination. They are making a mountain out of a molehill….They want us to believe Udaipur Files is more profound than Pahalgam, Pulwama…,' he added. Bhatia questioned Madani's credentials saying he has three FIRs registered against him for provocative speech. 'They want to act as super censor. Can this be allowed in a country like ours?' he asked. Justice Kant said, 'Today, only short question here is once you withdraw your petition, should there be a condition from this court (to not screen) for 2 days, 3 days…?' Sibal said that all cases cited by the film makers are different from this 'for the simple reason that this movie has been seen while others were not seen. Therefore I am challenging the content which could not be done in those cases.' The high court had allowed a special screening and asked those objecting to watch it before it decided their plea for stay of release. Sibal argued that his case is also covered by the Supreme Court judgment in the Amish Devgan case. But Justice Bagchi said, 'In that respect, we will apply the Wednesbury principle. Whenever an expert body takes a decision, courts are generally deferential. It is not that judicial review is completely obviated. If the finding is perverse or completely contrary to the established principles, fundamental principles, courts will interfere. But nonetheless, we won't put the test of proportionality vis a vis the hands of the expert body.' Sibal said 'They have a CBFC certificate. The presumption is in their favour. But I have a right to challenge it.' 'You have (already) challenged it,' said Justice Bagchi. Sibal said, 'If they make a statement that it is not being released till Monday, Your Lordships may fix it for Monday (before the HC).' Justice Kant, however, said, 'No, how can we compel them to make a statement!' Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
Supreme Court Asks Delhi HC To Hear Case Against 'Udaipur Files' On Monday
A petition had been filed against the release of the film "Udaipur Files" for allegedly promoting communalism and vilifying the Muslim community. The Supreme Court on Friday urged the Delhi High Court to hear the petitions challenging the release of the film 'Udaipur Files' – which has been accused of promoting communalism – on Monday (July 28). The movie is based on the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur who was killed in June 2022. Islamic scholar Arshad Madani and Mohammed Javed, one of the accused in the murder case, moved the apex court against the release of the movie, saying it spreads hatred against Muslims and was deeply communal in nature. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymala Bagchi asked the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court after the Central government allowed the movie release after certain modifications. 'First, go to HC and pursue, and then come here. Now the other side says he [movie producer] is satisfied with the central government order, and he does not want to pursue the case here. So you go to HC now. Why waste our time?" the bench said. This came after a petition seeking the release of the movie was filed by movie producers against a Delhi High Court order that stayed the release of the movie and asked the Central government to review it first. The Supreme Court allowed the government to review the film, and a panel appointed by the government asked producers to make certain changes before release. However, the government on Thursday told the Supreme Court that the film is 'crime-focused" and does not target any specific community. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the dialogues are generic and references to terrorism are context-specific. The movie revolves around the accused in the case, Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous, who allegedly murdered and beheaded Lal over a social media post he shared supporting a former BJP leader. The killing, carried out in broad daylight, had sparked national outrage. However, Madani had argued that the film unfairly extrapolates that crime to project an entire community as complicit or sympathetic to terrorism. The trial continues in the Special NIA Court, with hearings set to resume after the court's summer break. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Delhi HC to SSC: ‘Make online portal more user friendly for visually-impaired candidates'
The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), which conducts recruitment exams to fill positions at multiple Central government departments, to make its online portal more user-friendly for the blind to apply for its various exams. A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the directions while asking the SSC to consider providing the blind candidates an alternative mode to upload their photographs while applying online for various exams being conducted by the commission. A plea filed by National Federation of the Blind's Santosh Kumar Rungta sought an alternative mode of uploading photographs for Combined Graduate Level Examinations, Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination 2025, and Multi-Tasking (Non-Technical) Staff and Havaldar (MTS and Havaldar) Examination, 2025. The measure, the petitioner said, would help blind candidates 'whose eye conditions are such that it makes it impossible for them to capture live photograph through face recognition and upload them thereby depriving them of their right to participate in the selection process for recruitment'. The petition termed the exclusion 'a clear case of discrimination and violation of fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution'. The bench observed that the petitioner had forwarded 60 e-mails of such candidates to the SSC and directed the commission to look into the matter at the earliest. 'We request the SSC to look into grievances in these 60 e-mails. So far issue in petition, we will consider for future examinations. Larger matter is Likely to take time. SSC should revisit its policy to make its portal more user friendly especially for visually impaired. Revisit your policy,' the bench said. The bench directed the SSC official to sit with the petitioner and settle the grievances. 'There are some issues that need to be resolved. In future be mindful. Come with your plans for future examinations,' it said and posted the matter on November 12.
