Whether Citizen’s can protest on public places for an Indefinite period?
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to its people. The citizens have the right to express their dissent and protest against the state. But can the said right be exercised absolutely? Are there any limitations imposed on these rights? Can the protest be continued for an indefinite period?
Well. The Article through the Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and Others will provide answers to all your questions.
Table of Contents:
- Introduction
- Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and Others
- Facts of the Case
- Issue
- Contentions of the Counsel for the Applicants
- Ratio of the Court
- Supreme Court’s view on Technology and Internet
- Decision held by the Court
- Questions answered in the Case of Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and Others
- Conclusion
Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and Others
Facts of the Case
A Citizenship Amendment Act was passed by the Indian Parliament in the year 2019. It conferred citizenship on non-Muslim migrants who belong to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, on or before December 31, 2014.
The Act was welcomed with support from some but also with huge protests from many. People unhappy with the said legislative amendment occupied the area of Shaheen Bagh to show their dissent towards the government. Some people also provided medicines, food etc. to the protesters.
The protest at Shaheen Bagh started to intensify with each passing day. Soon protesters within some days of protests occupied a busy six-lane highway till 1 kilometer. The highway being an important route got disturbed due to the protests. This became inconvenient for the locals using the route to travel from one place to another. The locals counter-protested and asked the roads to be reopened soon.
This was followed by the filing of a plea in the Delhi High Court that sought transfer of protesters from Shaheen Bagh to a different place which was later dismissed by Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice C. Harishankar.
However, later Amit Sahni, a lawyer-activist, approached Delhi High Court in January 2020 to file a writ petition against the blockage of the road including the Okhla underpass for 30 days. He pleaded with the Court for removal of the blockage to again attain a smooth flow of traffic. Applications were also filed by the one’s supporting the protesters.
Thus, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Sanjay R. Hegde and mediator trainer Sadhana Ramachandran as the two interlocutors. Both the interlocutors made many efforts and submitted their report on February 24, 2020. The report highlighted the high demands made by both the parties and the difficulty in finding a middle way between both the parties to open the blocked route.
The High Court directed the respondent authorities to take the necessary steps but gave no specific order or direction and the situation remained the same. Thus, Advocate Amit Sahni, the appellant filed the present appeal in Supreme Court against the order of the High Court, arguing for the removal of the protest site.
Issue:
Whether the protesters have the right to occupy the public spaces for an indefinite period?
Contentions of the Counsel for the Applicants
As per the learned counsel for the applicants Mr. Mehmood Pracha, the protesters both in respect of space and numbers have an absolute right of peaceful protest under Article19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b). He further contended that the Indian Constitution places a restriction on these rights only in case of maintaining a “public order” and the restrictions should be placed only when they are reasonable.
Ratio of the Court
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Krishna Murrai
The Apex Court placed reliance on its judgement in the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India & Anr. where the Court had to consider the regulation of demonstrations at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. The Court in the instant case emphasized on balancing the interest of residents vis-à-vis the interest of protesters.
The Court observed that the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution to an individual or a class, does not exist in isolation and it is necessary to exercise them with their counterparts.
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution provides its citizen with two important rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b):
Article 19(1)(a)– All citizens shall have the Right to freedom of speech and expression;
Article 19(1)(b)- All citizens shall have the Right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Though the Constitution guarantees these rights to its citizens, these rights are not free from obligation and duties.
Article 19(2) states that-
Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 19 shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
Article 19(3) states that-
Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
Thus, Article 19 concerning sovereignty, integrity and public order can place reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the said right.
Thus, to arrive at a proper solution, balancing the interests of the protester with that of commuters, the State must acknowledge the constitutional rights of the people guaranteed to them under Article 19 and the people must oblige the reasonable restrictions which the State imposes on them concerning India’s sovereignty, integrity and the Public Order.
The Court was of the opinion that to balance both of these interests, it is necessary to organize the protests in some designated places.
The Court at this time noted that, in the case of Shaheen Bagh, the protest was held in an ‘undesignated area’. In addition to this, the protesters showed their dissent in an important public route whose blockage caused grave inconvenience to the commuters.
The Court also stated that while appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest against legislation it should be unequivocally made clear that the public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely.
Supreme Court’s view on Technology and Internet
The Supreme Court while expressing its view on the contradictory nature of technology and the internet stated that both empower digitally fueled movements and at the same time contribute to their apparent weakness. With the help of digital infrastructure, the movements are empowered to embrace their often-leaderless aspirations and evade usual restrictions of censorship.
However, another side of this is that social media channels are often fraught with danger and can lead to the creation of highly polarised environments, which often see parallel conversations running with no constructive outcome evident.
The case of Shaheen Bagh witnessed both of these scenarios. The protest was started against the Citizenship Amendment Act gained momentum across cities to become a movement of solidarity for the women and their cause, but later became the reason of inconvenience to the commuters.
Decision held by the Court
The Supreme Court held that it does not have any 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. It further held that the administration must take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions. The High Court instead of creating a fluid environment by disposing of the Writ Petition should have monitored the matter.
There is no doubt that it is the responsibility of the Respondent authorities to take suitable action, but then such suitable action should also produce results. Despite the lapse of a considerable period of time, there was neither any negotiations nor any action was taken by the administration, because of which Supreme Court’s intervention became necessary.
The Court further expressed that it hopes that such a situation should not arise in future and protests will be carried out subject to the legal position as enunciated above, with some sympathy and dialogue, but should not be permitted to get out of hand.
By saying this, the Apex Court closed its proceedings and disposed of the said appeal.
Questions answered in the Case of Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and Others
Q. Whether citizens of India have the Right to protest?
Ans. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution allows the citizens of India to assemble and also allows them to freely express their views.
Thus, the citizens under the said Fundamental Right are allowed to show their dissent by protesting against it.
Q. Whether the Right to protest is absolute?
Ans. No. The Rights granted by Article 19 to citizens to assemble and freely express their views are not absolute. The views expressed by the citizens and the formation of an assembly should not in any way affect the country’s sovereignty and integrity and should not be against the security of the nation and its public order. Further, it should not have any effect on the country’s friendly relation with other states. The assembly of the citizens should be formed without any arms and in a peaceful manner.
The case highlighted that in order to do protests, it should be done only in a designated area where no inconvenience should be caused to the commuters.
Q Whether the protesters have the right to occupy the public spaces for an indefinite period?
Ans. The Court in the instant case of Shaheen Bagh, unequivocally made it clear that the public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied to protest for an indefinite period.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in its 13-page Judgement dated October 7, 2020, has answered some of the important issues in the instant case. The Court beautifully came up with the solution of balancing both the interest of protesters and the commuters to correctly settle a situation of protest.
However, the Judgement also faced certain criticisms from various protesters around the country.