Public Spaces Cannot be Occupied Indefinitely for Protests: Supreme Court on Shaheen Bagh Protests

Must Read

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years...

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA)....

Follow us

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that although the citizens of the country have a fundamental right of dissent, the protestors cannot disrupt the public order.

Brief Facts of the Case

There have been protests against the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in Shaheen Bagh, Delhi. Amidst various petitions filed, the Supreme Court-appointed two intermediates, an advocate and a mediator to meet the protestors. Their report consisted of demands that do not have a middle ground to open the blocked public way in Delhi.

The pandemic regulations forced the protestors at the Shaheen Bagh site to clear. Some police action was also initiated to remove the various tents and other structures of the protest. 

Appellant’s Arguments

There was an absolute right to peaceful protest, both in respect of space and number of people. He submitted that the right under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India are only restricted by the provisions of Clauses (2) & (3). Thus, the only applicable aspect would be ‘public order’, but such restriction must be reasonable. 

Respondent’s Arguments

Although the State cannot impose any unreasonable restrictions, a right to hold meetings on public streets was subject to the control of the appropriate authority. This is of the time and place of the meeting and also subject to considering the maintenance of public order.

Court’s Observations

The Bench noted that under Article 19(1)(b) the citizens have the right to assemble peacefully without arms. It enables every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State.

These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions to the regulation by the concerned police authorities to maintain public order.

While appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest against legislation, the public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely. 

Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. 

In the present case, it was not even one of the protests taking place in an undesignated area. It was rather a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. 

The Court opined that such protests cannot be accepted. An indeterminable number of people cannot assemble whenever they choose to protest.

Court’s Decision

The Bench stated that occupation of public ways, for protests is not acceptable. The administration of the premises requires to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

Bombay High Court Pursues Case Alleging Media Trial, Says NBSA Guidelines Must Be Toothed by Centre

Amid the pleas alleging media trials, the Division Bench had been hearing submissions of the News Broadcasters’ Authority (NBA). It prayed that severe restrictions...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -