In landmark judgment on Shaheen Bagh protests, SC balances citizens’ right to dissent with public order, directing administration to prevent encroachments on public ways
The Supreme Court of India, in its Civil Appeal No. 3282 of 2020 dated October 7, 2020, delivered a significant judgment concerning the nature and limits of public protests, specifically addressing the protracted Shaheen Bagh demonstration against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose, and Krishna Murari underscored the constitutional right to protest but clarified that such demonstrations must be conducted within designated spaces without obstructing public ways.
The Court acknowledged the democratic right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution for citizens to assemble peacefully and express dissent. It recognized that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, is currently under constitutional challenge and that opposing views and protests are natural and constitutionally protected. However, the Court took a firm stand against the indefinite occupation of public roads that result in inconvenience to commuters and disruption of public order, as was the case with the prolonged blockade of the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch and Okhla underpass in Delhi.
The judgment highlighted the unique circumstances of the Shaheen Bagh protest, where a large number of women occupied a public road for an extended period, creating significant obstructions. Despite attempts by interlocutors appointed by the Court to mediate and find a peaceful resolution, the protest continued, complicated by the presence of multiple groups and lack of clear leadership. The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic eventually led to the clearing of the protest site, but the Court took this opportunity to define clear parameters for future protests.
Referring to earlier precedents such as Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that while the right to protest is fundamental, it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. The Court cautioned that public spaces and roads exist primarily for public use and cannot be indefinitely occupied for protests. It emphasized that protests must be regulated to avoid arbitrary restrictions but cannot transgress into obstruction of public ways.
The Court also observed the modern dynamics of protests aided by digital technology, noting both its empowering aspects and challenges, including polarization and leaderless movements, as seen in Shaheen Bagh. It stressed the responsibility of the administration to act decisively to keep public ways clear, without relying on court orders as shields for inaction.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court urged that protests should be conducted with a balance between the right to dissent and the rights of others, advocating for designated protest sites and reasonable regulation. It expressed hope that future demonstrations would adhere to these principles, ensuring democratic expression without causing public inconvenience.
Statutory provisions
Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, Article 32 of the Constitution of India, Section 33(1)(o) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1748659
