Uttarakhand: Markets in Purola remain closed in protest against issuance of prohibitory orders

Markets in Uttarakhand's Purola and neighbouring towns remained closed on Thursday in protest against the imposition of prohibitory orders to prevent a ''mahapanchayat'' that was scheduled to be held there during the day over alleged incidents of ''love jihad''.

Police were deployed in large number in Uttarkashi district's Purola where tension has been brewing for over a fortnight since a foiled attempt by two men, including a Muslim, to abduct a minor girl.

While hearing a petition on Thursday on the communal tension in the hill town, the Uttarakhand High Court directed the state government to ensure that law and order is maintained and and no loss of life or property takes place.

The state government had issued prohibitory orders under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to prevent the ''mahapanchayat'' called by local trade bodies and Hindutva outfits, including the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal, on Thursday over alleged incidents of ''love jihad''.

However, the call for the ''mahapanchayat'' was withdrawn by the organisers late on Wednesday night. Section 144 was imposed in Purola on Wednesday for six days till June 19.

There was a substantial deployment of police and Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) personnel on the streets of Purola to ensure that there is no violation of the prohibitory orders.

Three PAC platoons have been deployed in addition to police personnel, Uttarkashi Superintendent of Police (SP) Arpan Yaduvanshi said. Two circle officers and an additional SP have also been deployed in Purola, he said.

Barricades have been put up in the entire Nagar Panchayat area and people moving in groups are being checked, the officer said and added that barricades have also been put up on the borders of Uttarkashi district.

The markets in Purola, Barkot and Naugaon will remain completely closed, Purola Vyapar Mandal president Brijmohan Chauhan and Barkot Vyapar Mandal president Rajaram Jagudi said.

''The imposition of prohibitory orders in Purola reflects the administration's dictatorial attitude. The steps taken to prevent the mahapanchayat show that we cannot share our point of view with our own people. It is a kind of slavery,'' Jagudi said.

The ''bazar bandh'' has been organised to acknowledge the efforts of those who have tried to awaken Hindus, he said.

The high court, while hearing the petition, also asked people not to engage in debates on social media on the incident, which had sparked communal tension in the town, and said it will help normalise the situation.

The state government is working towards maintaining law and order in the area and with time, things will settle down as time is the best healer, a division bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Rakesh Thapliyal said and also expressed satisfaction with the steps being taken authorities.

The petition was moved by advocate Shahrukh Alam on behalf of The Association for Protection of Civil Rights seeking prevention of the mahapanchayat in Purola as it could disturb public harmony.

The court said that the communities have been living in harmony with one other for centuries and they will continue to do so.

It directed the state government to ensure that law and order is maintained and no loss of life or property takes place in Purola.

It was said in the petition that a mahapanchayat has been called by various Hindutva organisations after a minor girl belonging to the Hindu community was caught eloping with a man of the Muslim community.

The mahapanchayat may pose a threat to public harmony and may lead to further communal tension, the petition said.

Advocate General SN Babulkar informed the court that section 144 has been imposed in the area and steps have been taken to defuse communal tensions, thereby, effectively preventing the mahapanchayat.

The petition also called for the state to maintain law and order in the area. It was alleged in the petition that Muslim shopkeepers have been asked not to open their shops. Posters announcing the same have been pasted outside their shops as well as uploaded on social media, it claimed.

Protection for such shops and their owners was also demanded by the petitioner. It was further prayed that FIR be registered against those who had authored such posters.

The bench also said one cannot be forced to buy or not buy from a particular shop. As for the FIR, it maintained that it is for the police to proceed in such matters.

The high court also said that an FIR has already been registered in the matter.

Even if there is an error on part of the police, the option to approach the magistrate under section 156(3) of the CrPC is always available, it said.