The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petitions requesting the revision of its judgment of October 7, 2020 in the case concerning the protests against the CAA in Shaheen Bagh, has reiterated that the constitutional guarantee of the right to protest comes with some passengers and it cannot continue the occupation of a public place in case of dissent or protracted protest.
“We have considered the previous judicial pronouncements and we have registered our opinion that the constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express disagreement but with the obligation to have certain duties. The right to protest cannot be anytime, anywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests, but in case of dissent or protracted protest, the occupation of a public place cannot continue, ”said a bench of judges SK Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari in their February 9 order.
“We have examined the Petition for Review and the Civil Appeal record and we are convinced that the order whose review has been requested does not suffer from any apparent error that justifies its reconsideration,” said the Court when rejecting the request for review.
In its October 7 ruling in the matter, the Supreme Court in expressing its strong disapproval of the way protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 were organized in the Shaheen Bagh area of the national capital had ruled that protests must be made. “Only in designated areas” and “public roads and public spaces cannot be occupied … and that too indefinitely.”
“… although we appreciate the existence of the right to peaceful protest against legislation … we have to make it unequivocally clear that public roads and public spaces cannot be occupied in that way and too indefinitely,” a court Judges Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari said in deciding the petitions that they sought the removal of protesters for causing traffic chaos in areas around the national capital.
The court said that “democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then demonstrations expressing dissent have to be only in designated places.”
The Shaheen Bagh protests, he had said, “were not even one of the protests that took place in an undesignated area, but a blockade of a public road that caused serious inconvenience to travelers” and added that “we cannot accept the statement of the applicants (who had sought to intervene in the matter in defense of the protesters) that an unknown number of people can gather when they want to protest.
“Therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that such occupation of public roads, whether at the site in question or elsewhere for protests, is not acceptable and the administration should take measures to keep the areas free from invasions. or obstructions, ”the Bank said in its Oct. 7 order that arose in an appeal by Attorney Amit Sahni.
Lawyer Sahni had first addressed the Delhi High Court highlighting the closure of the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh section, including the Okhla underpass since December 15, 2019, caused by the protest /.
Sahni argued that public roads could not be allowed to be invaded in this way and looked for a direction to clear them.
The Superior Court, which heard the allegation on January 14, 2019, resolved it the same day without a specific address. The HC had said that the Delhi Police had all the powers, jurisdiction and authority to control traffic in the broader public interest wherever protests or upheavals occurred and that it was up to the authorities to take a call based on the reality of the terrain and the wisdom of the police officer, especially where situations can change every 10 minutes.
The CV, however, said that it is “of the opinion that the Superior Court should have supervised the matter rather than have the writ petition and create a fluid situation.
The SC bench also ruled that there was no action or negotiation whatsoever on the part of the administration and this finally merited their intervention.
.
She is a freelance blogger, writer, and speaker, and writes for various entertainment magazines.