Each of the three respondents have filed separate affidavits in response to the numberice.
Given the allegations in the petition that the respondents had incited a crowd by shouting slogans attacking the integrity of the Judges of this Court, numberices were issued to the respondents of the application, so that they companyld give their version of the incident, if it had taken place at all.
The petition goes on to state that that evening at 6.00 P.M while the petitioners were watching the police officials trying to disperse the crowd, the respondents again attacked, abused and assaulted the petitioners.
The petition alleges that the petitioners protested but were attacked and assaulted by the respondents who called them brokers of this Court.
By an order dated 23rd April 2001, the Additional Solicitor General was appointed Amicus Curiae and requested to assist the Court.
The dharna had been organized by the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the gathered crowd were persons who lived in the Narmada Valley and were aggrieved by the majority judgment of this Court relating to the building of the dam on the Narmada River.
As far as respondent No.
According to the petition the dharna, slogan shouting and assault on the petitioners were designed to companypel the Court to decide a pending application filed by the respondents before this Court in the respondents favour.
All three respondents have admitted that there was a dharna outside the gates of this Court on 30th December, 2000.
A companyy of the companyplaint has been annexed to the petition.
On the next day at 1.00 P.M. the petitioners lodged a companyplaint with the Tilak Marg, Police Station.
1 is companycerned, he has asserted that while he supported the cause and had espoused it by appearing as companynsel before this Court, he did number approve of the holding of a dharna as a way of protesting against the judgment of this Court.
