2020 Supreme(SC) 577

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.
AMIT SAHNI – APPELLANT
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3282 OF 2020
Decided on : 07-10-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Shaheen Bagh Protests – Public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely – -Democracy and dissent go hand in hand but demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.
(2) Right to protest – Erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy.
(3) 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.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 – Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 – National Register of Citizens(NRC) – Right to protest – Limitations – Erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy – Our Constitutional scheme comes with right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties – Article 19 confers upon its citizens two treasured rights, i.e., right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b) – These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against actions or inactions of State – Same must be respected and encouraged by State, for strength of a democracy such as ours lies in the same – These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions which pertain to interests of sovereignty and integrity of India and public order and to regulation by 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. (Para 16)

(B) Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 – National Register of Citizens(NRC) – Shaheen Bagh Protests – 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 demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone – 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 – Plea of applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest, cannot be accepted – We live in age of technology and Internet where social movements around world have swiftly integrated digital connectivity into their toolkit; be it for organising, publicity or effective communication – Technology, however, in a near paradoxical manner, works to both empower digitally fuelled movements and at the same time, contributes to their apparent weaknesses – Ability to scale up quickly, using digital infrastructure has empowered movements to embrace their often-leaderless aspirations and evade usual restrictions of censorship – However, flip side to this is that social media channels are often fraught with danger and can lead to creation of highly polarised environments which often see parallel conversations running with no constructive outcome evident – Both these scenarios were witnessed in Shaheen Bagh which started out as a protest against Citizenship Amendment Act, gained momentum across cities to become a movement of solidarity for women and their cause, but came with its fair share of chinks and caused inconvenience of commuters – Such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and administration ought to take action to keep areas clear of encroachments or obstructions – High Court should have monitored the matter rather than disposing of Writ Petition and creating a fluid situation – It is responsibility of respondent authorities to take suitable action but then such suitable action should produce results – In what manner administration should act is their responsibility and they should not hide behind court orders or seek support therefrom for carrying out their administrative functions – Courts adjudicate legality of actions and are not meant to give shoulder to administration to fire their guns from – Despite lapse of a considerable period of time, there was neither any negotiations nor any action by administration, warranting Court's intervention – Court can only hope that such a situation does not arise in future and protests are subject to legal position as enunciated here, with some sympathy and dialogue, but are not permitted to get out of hand. (Para 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

The Legislature, in its wisdom, enacted the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which has its share of supporters and opponents. The Legislature performed its task. A section of the society, aggrieved by this legislative amendment, has filed petitions before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, assailing the constitutionality and legality of this amendment, which is pending consideration. There is no stay of the legislation for the purpose of record. There have been protests against this legislation in Delhi and in different parts of the country. Point in issue calls for determination of right of citizens to block roads in the name of protest.

Findings of Court:

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. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.

Result : Civil Appeal disposed of with directions.