Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(a), (b) – Right to protest, subject to reasonable restrictions – Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Protests in different parts of the country – Kalindi KunjShaheen Bagh stretch, including Okhla underpass blocked in Delhi – Public roads encroached – Writ Petition filed before Delhi High Court – Disposed of with directions to authorities – Situation remained the same – Present appeal; intervention applications by various parties – Two interlocutors appointed, their efforts not successful – Arrival of Coronavirus pandemic – Site cleared with some police action – Held: Reliefs in the present proceedings though worked themselves out – Art.19 confers upon its citizens, the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully without arms – However, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions – Present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way causing grave inconvenience to commuters – Such kind of occupation of public ways for protests is not acceptable – Public ways, spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: Constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties. Article 19, one of the cornerstones of the Constitution of India, confers upon its citizens two treasured rights, i.e., the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b). These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State. These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, which, inter alia, pertain to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order, and to the regulation by the concerned police authorities in this regard. Each fundamental right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right. It was in this respect, that in this case, an attempt was made by the Court to reach a solution where the rights of protestors were to be balanced with that of commuters. However, while appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation, it is made unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. The plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest cannot be accepted. Such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions. The High Court also should have monitored the matter rather than disposing of the Writ Petition and creating a fluid situation.[Paras 16, 17, 19 and 20][158-A-G' 159-E-F]
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 17 SCC 324 : [2018] 11 SCR 586; In re Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012) 5 SCC 1 : [2012]
4 SCR 971; Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr. (1973) 1 SCC 227 : [1973]
2 SCR 266 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.