The petitioner took the Court through the reply filed by the CBI and submitted that opening the LOC was in blatant violation of the Sumer Singh Salkan v Asst. Director case.
“Citizens rights can’t be railroaded like this. It is time that we send a suitable reply to the law enforcement agencies and society,” Mir submitted.
Further, he argued that the IO committed a blatant violation of court, procedure, ethics, morality and legal obligation as a public officer and a police officer when he opened the LOC.
He stated that the IO committed two egregious errors, he filed chargesheet without seeking sanction and also violated his own CBI manual.
The counsel prompted the Court to ask Bahuguna if there was any substantial evidence in his case diary, from the time of filing the FIR till date, that necessitated him to open the LOC.
It was the petitioner’s stand that this was an appropriate case to send a suitable reply to not just the IO, but society at large.
“Your honor the fundamental rights which are guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 are not to be trampled down, railroaded with a sense of impunity,” he stressed.
Therefore, it was his suggestion that the best mechanism to adopt would be that the IO who promulgated the LOC were to pay the money prejudiced from his pocket.