Police Detained Wangchuk’s Supporters Who Were Protesting Outside Ladakh Bhawan In Delhi – Amar Ujala Hindi News Live

Police Detained Wangchuk’s Supporters Who Were Protesting Outside Ladakh Bhawan In Delhi – Amar Ujala Hindi News Live


Amar Ujala Network, New Delhi

Published by: Shyam ji.

Updated Sun, 13 Oct 2024 09:57 PM IST

Wangchuk shared the video on social media and said that Delhi Police has detained many of his supporters. He said that he has been told that Section 163 has been imposed. It is regrettable that the mother of democracy remains under such restrictions throughout the year.



Delhi Police detained many protesters.
– Photo: Amar Ujala

Trending Videos



Expansion


Delhi Police detained several people from outside Ladakh Bhawan on Sunday. Where climate activist Sonam Wangchuk is leading an indefinite hunger strike since October 6 demanding the inclusion of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. According to a protester, those detained have been taken to Mandir Marg police station. Earlier the police had said that Sonam Wangchuk was also among those detained, but later New Delhi Deputy Commissioner of Police Devesh Mahala denied this. He said that the police have detained some students from outside Ladakh Bhawan. Sonam Wangchuk is not included in them.

Trending Videos

Meanwhile, Wangchuk shared a video on social media and said that Delhi Police has detained many of his supporters. He raised questions as to why Section 163 of the Indian Civil Security Code (BNSS), which prohibits unauthorized gatherings, is permanently in force in New Delhi. He said that many people had come here to hold a silent protest. It is really sad that he was detained by Delhi Police. This is sad because in the world’s largest democracy one cannot even hold silent protests.

He said that he has been told that Section 163 has been imposed. It is regrettable that the mother of democracy remains under such restrictions throughout the year. Wangchuk said that this section is usually implemented temporarily only when there is a possibility of disruption of law and order. He said that this is a stain on democracy. The courts should take cognizance of this. How can such sections be imposed permanently?



Source link

Related posts

Leave a Reply