JOIN USRight to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere, says Supreme Court
Amid ongoing sit-in by farmers at Delhi borders for over two months, the Supreme Court has once again emphasised the right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere.
"There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public place affecting rights of others," a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said.
The court dismissed a plea made by a dozen activists led by Kaniz Fathina for review of the October 7, 2020 judgement, which termed anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protest at Shaheen Bagh here as illegal.
The bench, also comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, declined to reconsider its previous judgement, saying it does not suffer any error apparent warranting its reconsideration.
The court also rejected their request for an oral hearing of the review petition in open court.
“We have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements and recorded our opinion that the Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties," the top court said.
The court's order passed on February 9 comes at a time when farmers unions have been organising protests and sit-in at Delhi borders since the end of November demanding repeal of three farm laws.
In its October 2020 judgement, the court had then declared that public roads and spaces can't be occupied in an indefinite manner for protests, causing inconvenience to the people, as such demonstrations must be organised at designated places only.
In a critical observation, the court had then said, “The Shaheen Bagh protest perhaps no longer remained the sole and empowering voice of women, who also appeared to no longer have the ability to call off the protest themselves.”
The Shaheen Bagh protest, predominantly by women and children, started in December 2019 to oppose the CAA-NPR-NRC, was replicated across the country. The sit-in was lifted after about 100 days as "the hand of God subsequently intervened and overtook the situation" in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic, the court had then said.
The court had then said it cannot accept that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest, and referred to the distinction between the manner of dissent against the colonisers and the expression of dissent in a democratic system.
In their review petition, the petitioners claimed the judgement appeared to be giving way to an unrestricted sanction to the police to take action by misusing these observations.