<p>Excessive use of Section 144 of CrPC by police to prevent protests from turning violent has not gone down well with many peaceful protesters. They argue it scuttles democracy. In a 1970 ruling Supreme Court upheld the section but laid down conditions for its use.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Since the midnight crackdown on yoga guru Baba Ramdev and his supporters at central Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan in May 2011, Delhi Police have frequently invoked prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, in several parts of the capital citing similar “agitations having grave consequences”.<br /><br />The order prohibits unlawful assembly of five or more persons in an area with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of peace, and police are empowered to act and ensure law and order. <br /><br />Whenever a non-political group with massive support base announces demonstrations, police use the section to make it illegal, and in the process make a mockery of the sanctity and legality of the section itself. <br /><br />Be it peaceful protest of youngsters demanding better law and order in the city or people from the Sikh community protesting for justice, police know how to snuff them out. In the process, they arguably violate citizens’ fundamental right to protest in a democracy. The orders are widely criticised and several public interest litigations against them are currently pending in court. <br /><br />Police had stormed the Ramdev’s hunger strike at Ramlila Maidan in May 2011, firing tear-gas shells and resorting to baton charge on his supporters. In an effort to pre-empt any protest by his supporters, police went on to ban holding of any public meeting, carrying of firearms, banners, placards, lathis, spears, swords, sticks and brickbats, shouting of slogans, making speeches, processions, demonstrations and picketing or dharnas.<br /><br />The prohibitory orders were defended by several senior police officers, including the then special commissioner of police (law and order) Dharmendra Kumar. <br /><br />“It was issued following reports indicating that such conditions now exist that unrestricted holding of public meetings, processions and demonstrations in the area are likely to cause obstruction to traffic, danger to human safety and disturbance of public tranquility,” Kumar had said. <br /><br />Police invoked the section when massive demonstrations were planned by Ramdev, Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal, and against the gang rape of a 23-year-old paramedical student. It was most recently imposed in the past week when the area around Parliament House was cordoned off after police were caught napping over anti-Sikh riots protesters blocking traffic at Vijay Chowk, resulting in some top parliamentarians walking to the House. <br /><br />Historical perspective<br /><br />The CrPC was enacted for the first time in 1861 as part of a series of criminal law reforms after the Rebellion of 1857. <br /><br />There was Criminal Procedure Code of 1861 (Act XXV of 1861), and British Parliament made amendments to it in 1872, 1882 and 1898.<br /><br />“It was used frequently during the British era to clamp down on nationalist protests. The legacy in this respect was carried on by independent India till the CrPC was amended in 1969 and recast again in 1973. It came into force on April 1, 1974. Barring Jammu and Kashmir and parts of the north-east, the CrPC applies to the whole of India and to all persons irrespective of their religion or nationality,” says Himanshu Roy, a lawyer practising at Patiala House courts.<br /><br />Nationalist agitations like the one against the salt tax suffered due to the law in the British era, and it was also iimposed against Mahatma Gandhi, Jawarharlal Nehru and Madan Mohan Malaviya, among others. Post-independence governments further adapted it to their needs, and it was served on everyone from Ram Manohar Lohia to V P Singh. <br />Chapter X of the CrPC gives the legal provisions for maintenance of public order and tranquillity, and lays down duties, powers and functions of the executive magistracy and police. <br /><br />“It provides wide powers to the magistrate, but the powers are conferred on police in Delhi due to the commissionerate system,” says Deepak Mishra, special commissioner of police (law and order). <br /><br />The chapter is divided into four parts: Part A (Unlawful Assemblies), Part B (Public Nuisances), Part C (Urgent Cases of Nuisance or Apprehended Danger) and Part D (Disputes as to Immovable Property). <br /><br />There are two sections of CrPC under Part C of Chapter X — Section 144 and Section 144A. <br /><br />Under Section 144, if there is sufficient ground to apprehend that a situation is developing in which certain act or acts or certain use of property will cause obstruction, annoyance, injury, danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray, then police may direct that person or persons to abstain from certain acts or take order with respect to the property in question, desist from collecting at designated areas or otherwise behaving in a manner in which public peace may be disturbed. <br /><br />Under Section 144A, police may prohibit carrying of arms in procession or mass drill, or carry out mass training with arms. <br /><br />In both cases, prohibitory orders are imposed to prevent crowd from collecting under circumstances in which there is tension or threat, and thereby giving police an opportunity to disperse people before their number becomes very large. <br /><br />“Every member of an unlawful assembly can be held responsible for a crime committed by the group. Obstructing a police officer trying to disperse an unlawful assembly may attract further punishment,” Mishra adds. <br /><br />Legal expert Himanshu Roy says that, in other words, Parliament in its wisdom has mandated that police have to prevent the commission of offences and have also to maintain public order and tranquillity, for which purpose they are suitably empowered by law. <br /><br />Faced with a sudden upsurge against the December 2012 gang rape of a paramedical student, police had issued five orders under the Section between December 23 and 31 at some of the capital’s well-known landmarks — Rashtrapati Bhavan, Parliament House, India Gate, Rajpath and Prime Minister’s house. They asked the youth not to protest against the gang rape. <br /><br />Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan were initially kept open for protests, but police later closed them too. Each one of those orders was the same — all of them prohibited the “holding of any public meeting”, the “assembly of five or more persons” as well as carrying of arms, banners and placards, or shouting slogans in these areas. <br /><br />Anticipating protests, police had also closed down seven Metro stations near Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate. Protesters, however, say they were beaten and fired at with tear gas by police even without the section being implemented. <br /><br />Legal challenges<br /><br />Given the wide use of the Section, it is little surprise that the Supreme Court has often been asked to rule it unconstitutional. Instead, the court upheld it in 1970, but laid down standards for its use. <br /><br />“The gist of action under Section 144 is the urgency of the situation, its efficacy in the likelihood of being able to prevent some harmful occurrences. As it is possible to act absolutely and even ex parte, it is obvious that the emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave,” a constitutional bench had said.<br /><br />As recently as last year, in a case involving the imposition of the Section on an agitation headed by Ramdev at Ramlila Maidan, a Supreme Court bench had said: “It must be borne in mind that the provisions of Section 144 CrPC are attracted only in emergent situations. In case of a mere apprehension without any material facts to indicate that the apprehension is imminent and genuine, it may not be proper for the authorities to place such a restriction upon the rights of citizens.”<br /><br />The Delhi High Court had also observed in January that the Section will lose its “sanctity” if it is invoked by authorities “just like that”. <br /><br />“There are rights to movement and speech and expression, it (Section 144 of the CrPC) cannot be used just like that. Otherwise, it will lead to loss of sanctity,” a bench of Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice V K Jain had said. <br /><br />The observations came during hearing of a PIL filed by Delhi-based advocate Anand K Mishra, who alleged that the prohibitory order was imposed during protests against the gang rape of the 23-year-old girl in an “arbitrary” manner and without following the procedures enshrined under the CrPC. The PIL, filed against the Union home ministry, Delhi government and Delhi Police, had sought a direction to declare the prohibitory orders issued on December 22, 2012 as “unconstitutional and illegal”. <br /><br />TALKING POINT<br /><br />The government has marked Jantar Mantar area as protest sites. And if any <br />demonstration takes place, police impose prohibitory orders according to their whims and fancies. It is our right to raise our voice against any injustice done to us, and we will <br />continue to do that.<br /><br />>> Jagdish chander joshi, <br />Resident, north-east delhi <br /><br />By imposing Section 144 of CrPC, police not only violate people’s fundamental rights but they also cause inconvenience to public. When there is a protest cops barricade roads. And certain intersections are blocked. Police should not impose such draconian laws to hide their incompetence<br /><br />>> Bhupinder Kapoor, <br />resident, south delhi<br /><br />Sometimes, it is seen that protesters misuse their right to demonstrate. They turn violent, so police have to resort to lathicharge and ultimately impose Section 144 of the CrPC. We should exercise our right to protest with certain restrictions, otherwise it can lead to law and order problems.<br /><br />>> Naresh Pal, <br />RESIDENT, north delhi<br /><br />Many a times it is seen that if a big political party stages protest, then nobody objects. But if a small group raises voice against injustice, then they are beaten up by cops. Police try to suppress them. Section 144 of the CrPC should never be used against peaceful protesters.<br /><br />>> Kanta Rani, <br />resident, south delhi<br /><br />Police often impose Section 144 of the CrPC before protests, assuming it can threaten law and order. Imposition of such orders before any protest should be banned. If you don’t allow people to protest at Jantar Mantar, then they will be forced to go to politicians’ houses. There they will be beaten up and the situation may get out <br />of hand.<br /><br />>> Kishan Singh, <br />resident, south-west delhi<br /><br />India being a democratic country, people should be allowed to exercise their right to speech and expression. If they want to stage a demonstration peacefully, then why make the situation complicated by imposing such orders, which will further infuriate the common man.<br /><br />>> Monesh Nirwal, <br />resident, south Delhi</p>
<p>Excessive use of Section 144 of CrPC by police to prevent protests from turning violent has not gone down well with many peaceful protesters. They argue it scuttles democracy. In a 1970 ruling Supreme Court upheld the section but laid down conditions for its use.<br /><br /></p>.<p>Since the midnight crackdown on yoga guru Baba Ramdev and his supporters at central Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan in May 2011, Delhi Police have frequently invoked prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, in several parts of the capital citing similar “agitations having grave consequences”.<br /><br />The order prohibits unlawful assembly of five or more persons in an area with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of peace, and police are empowered to act and ensure law and order. <br /><br />Whenever a non-political group with massive support base announces demonstrations, police use the section to make it illegal, and in the process make a mockery of the sanctity and legality of the section itself. <br /><br />Be it peaceful protest of youngsters demanding better law and order in the city or people from the Sikh community protesting for justice, police know how to snuff them out. In the process, they arguably violate citizens’ fundamental right to protest in a democracy. The orders are widely criticised and several public interest litigations against them are currently pending in court. <br /><br />Police had stormed the Ramdev’s hunger strike at Ramlila Maidan in May 2011, firing tear-gas shells and resorting to baton charge on his supporters. In an effort to pre-empt any protest by his supporters, police went on to ban holding of any public meeting, carrying of firearms, banners, placards, lathis, spears, swords, sticks and brickbats, shouting of slogans, making speeches, processions, demonstrations and picketing or dharnas.<br /><br />The prohibitory orders were defended by several senior police officers, including the then special commissioner of police (law and order) Dharmendra Kumar. <br /><br />“It was issued following reports indicating that such conditions now exist that unrestricted holding of public meetings, processions and demonstrations in the area are likely to cause obstruction to traffic, danger to human safety and disturbance of public tranquility,” Kumar had said. <br /><br />Police invoked the section when massive demonstrations were planned by Ramdev, Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal, and against the gang rape of a 23-year-old paramedical student. It was most recently imposed in the past week when the area around Parliament House was cordoned off after police were caught napping over anti-Sikh riots protesters blocking traffic at Vijay Chowk, resulting in some top parliamentarians walking to the House. <br /><br />Historical perspective<br /><br />The CrPC was enacted for the first time in 1861 as part of a series of criminal law reforms after the Rebellion of 1857. <br /><br />There was Criminal Procedure Code of 1861 (Act XXV of 1861), and British Parliament made amendments to it in 1872, 1882 and 1898.<br /><br />“It was used frequently during the British era to clamp down on nationalist protests. The legacy in this respect was carried on by independent India till the CrPC was amended in 1969 and recast again in 1973. It came into force on April 1, 1974. Barring Jammu and Kashmir and parts of the north-east, the CrPC applies to the whole of India and to all persons irrespective of their religion or nationality,” says Himanshu Roy, a lawyer practising at Patiala House courts.<br /><br />Nationalist agitations like the one against the salt tax suffered due to the law in the British era, and it was also iimposed against Mahatma Gandhi, Jawarharlal Nehru and Madan Mohan Malaviya, among others. Post-independence governments further adapted it to their needs, and it was served on everyone from Ram Manohar Lohia to V P Singh. <br />Chapter X of the CrPC gives the legal provisions for maintenance of public order and tranquillity, and lays down duties, powers and functions of the executive magistracy and police. <br /><br />“It provides wide powers to the magistrate, but the powers are conferred on police in Delhi due to the commissionerate system,” says Deepak Mishra, special commissioner of police (law and order). <br /><br />The chapter is divided into four parts: Part A (Unlawful Assemblies), Part B (Public Nuisances), Part C (Urgent Cases of Nuisance or Apprehended Danger) and Part D (Disputes as to Immovable Property). <br /><br />There are two sections of CrPC under Part C of Chapter X — Section 144 and Section 144A. <br /><br />Under Section 144, if there is sufficient ground to apprehend that a situation is developing in which certain act or acts or certain use of property will cause obstruction, annoyance, injury, danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray, then police may direct that person or persons to abstain from certain acts or take order with respect to the property in question, desist from collecting at designated areas or otherwise behaving in a manner in which public peace may be disturbed. <br /><br />Under Section 144A, police may prohibit carrying of arms in procession or mass drill, or carry out mass training with arms. <br /><br />In both cases, prohibitory orders are imposed to prevent crowd from collecting under circumstances in which there is tension or threat, and thereby giving police an opportunity to disperse people before their number becomes very large. <br /><br />“Every member of an unlawful assembly can be held responsible for a crime committed by the group. Obstructing a police officer trying to disperse an unlawful assembly may attract further punishment,” Mishra adds. <br /><br />Legal expert Himanshu Roy says that, in other words, Parliament in its wisdom has mandated that police have to prevent the commission of offences and have also to maintain public order and tranquillity, for which purpose they are suitably empowered by law. <br /><br />Faced with a sudden upsurge against the December 2012 gang rape of a paramedical student, police had issued five orders under the Section between December 23 and 31 at some of the capital’s well-known landmarks — Rashtrapati Bhavan, Parliament House, India Gate, Rajpath and Prime Minister’s house. They asked the youth not to protest against the gang rape. <br /><br />Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan were initially kept open for protests, but police later closed them too. Each one of those orders was the same — all of them prohibited the “holding of any public meeting”, the “assembly of five or more persons” as well as carrying of arms, banners and placards, or shouting slogans in these areas. <br /><br />Anticipating protests, police had also closed down seven Metro stations near Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate. Protesters, however, say they were beaten and fired at with tear gas by police even without the section being implemented. <br /><br />Legal challenges<br /><br />Given the wide use of the Section, it is little surprise that the Supreme Court has often been asked to rule it unconstitutional. Instead, the court upheld it in 1970, but laid down standards for its use. <br /><br />“The gist of action under Section 144 is the urgency of the situation, its efficacy in the likelihood of being able to prevent some harmful occurrences. As it is possible to act absolutely and even ex parte, it is obvious that the emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave,” a constitutional bench had said.<br /><br />As recently as last year, in a case involving the imposition of the Section on an agitation headed by Ramdev at Ramlila Maidan, a Supreme Court bench had said: “It must be borne in mind that the provisions of Section 144 CrPC are attracted only in emergent situations. In case of a mere apprehension without any material facts to indicate that the apprehension is imminent and genuine, it may not be proper for the authorities to place such a restriction upon the rights of citizens.”<br /><br />The Delhi High Court had also observed in January that the Section will lose its “sanctity” if it is invoked by authorities “just like that”. <br /><br />“There are rights to movement and speech and expression, it (Section 144 of the CrPC) cannot be used just like that. Otherwise, it will lead to loss of sanctity,” a bench of Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice V K Jain had said. <br /><br />The observations came during hearing of a PIL filed by Delhi-based advocate Anand K Mishra, who alleged that the prohibitory order was imposed during protests against the gang rape of the 23-year-old girl in an “arbitrary” manner and without following the procedures enshrined under the CrPC. The PIL, filed against the Union home ministry, Delhi government and Delhi Police, had sought a direction to declare the prohibitory orders issued on December 22, 2012 as “unconstitutional and illegal”. <br /><br />TALKING POINT<br /><br />The government has marked Jantar Mantar area as protest sites. And if any <br />demonstration takes place, police impose prohibitory orders according to their whims and fancies. It is our right to raise our voice against any injustice done to us, and we will <br />continue to do that.<br /><br />>> Jagdish chander joshi, <br />Resident, north-east delhi <br /><br />By imposing Section 144 of CrPC, police not only violate people’s fundamental rights but they also cause inconvenience to public. When there is a protest cops barricade roads. And certain intersections are blocked. Police should not impose such draconian laws to hide their incompetence<br /><br />>> Bhupinder Kapoor, <br />resident, south delhi<br /><br />Sometimes, it is seen that protesters misuse their right to demonstrate. They turn violent, so police have to resort to lathicharge and ultimately impose Section 144 of the CrPC. We should exercise our right to protest with certain restrictions, otherwise it can lead to law and order problems.<br /><br />>> Naresh Pal, <br />RESIDENT, north delhi<br /><br />Many a times it is seen that if a big political party stages protest, then nobody objects. But if a small group raises voice against injustice, then they are beaten up by cops. Police try to suppress them. Section 144 of the CrPC should never be used against peaceful protesters.<br /><br />>> Kanta Rani, <br />resident, south delhi<br /><br />Police often impose Section 144 of the CrPC before protests, assuming it can threaten law and order. Imposition of such orders before any protest should be banned. If you don’t allow people to protest at Jantar Mantar, then they will be forced to go to politicians’ houses. There they will be beaten up and the situation may get out <br />of hand.<br /><br />>> Kishan Singh, <br />resident, south-west delhi<br /><br />India being a democratic country, people should be allowed to exercise their right to speech and expression. If they want to stage a demonstration peacefully, then why make the situation complicated by imposing such orders, which will further infuriate the common man.<br /><br />>> Monesh Nirwal, <br />resident, south Delhi</p>
