JOIN USShaheen Bagh verdict: Public places cannot be occupied indefinitely
The Supreme Court on Wednesday 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.
"Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone," a three-judge bench presided over by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said in its judgement on Shaheen Bagh protests organised here against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, blocking a prominent road connecting Delhi and Noida.
The court reminded the protesters who occupied public places not only in Delhi but several prominent cities across the country that our constitutional scheme allowed the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties
"What must be kept in mind, however, is that the erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy," the bench said.
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution enabled every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State. This must be respected and encouraged for the strength of democracy, the court, however, added.
The Shaheen Bagh 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 noted that the protesters were aggrieved with the CAA whose validity of law was already pending, while the details of the National Register of Citizens were yet to be propounded.
"We have no hesitation in concluding that 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 bench said.
The court rejected the contention of protesters that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.
The present case was not even one of the protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters, the court said.
"While appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest, we have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely," the bench, also comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, said.
In the instant case, the top court pointed out Delhi High Court should have monitored the matter, rather than asking the administration to take suitable action as per law.
The bench also pulled up the administration, saying they should act as per their responsibility and should not hide behind the court orders or seek support for carrying out their functions.
"The courts adjudicate the legality of the actions and are not meant to give a shoulder to the administration to fire their guns from. Unfortunately, despite a lapse of a considerable period of time, there was neither any negotiations nor any action by the administration, thus warranting our intervention," the court said.
During the hearing, two interlocutors senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Sadhana Ramachandran were appointed as an "out of the box solution" to talk to the protesters but "their efforts did not fructify into success".