1. Application to prohibit a rally to prevent hate speech and communal disharmony — seeking directions for preventive action and penal proceedings. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1766
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M.Joseph, J.B.Pardiwala, JJ.
Shaheen Abdulla – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.940 of 2022
Decided On : 03-02-2023
Important Points
The Court emphasized that permissions for public rallies are conditional upon the absence of hate speech and maintenance of public order, directing authorities to utilize Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent cognizable offences and mandating videography for judicial oversight.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Public Order
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 151 - Petition to prohibit rally inciting communal disharmony - The Court found that the interest of justice demands oversight over any event posing potential public disorder; conditions imposed on permission for events to prevent hate speech. (Paras 4, 5, 7)
(B) Preventive Measures - Authority's duty under Section 151 - The Court ruled that law enforcement must act to prevent cognizable offences and ensure public order during events. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to prohibit a rally scheduled for 05.02.2023, alleging incitement to communal disharmony through hate speech, while requiring law enforcement to take preventive measures against any disruption. The respondent-State indicated willingness to impose conditions should permission for the rally be granted.
Findings of Court:
The Court accepted the need for preventative actions including videography of the event and mandated that law enforcement adhere to legal provisions to prevent public order violations.
Issues: The main questions included the appropriateness of granting permission for the rally and the responsibilities of law enforcement to prevent hate speech and maintain order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the duty of police under Section 151 to arrest those intending to commit cognizable offences and the importance of maintaining public order during events; any obtained footage from the rally would be subject to judicial review.
Result: The case was listed for further hearing in two weeks.
(B) Preventive Measures - Authority's duty under Section 151 - The Court ruled that law enforcement must act to prevent cognizable offences and ensure public order during events. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to prohibit a rally scheduled for 05.02.2023, alleging incitement to communal disharmony through hate speech, while requiring law enforcement to take preventive measures against any disruption. The respondent-State indicated willingness to impose conditions should permission for the rally be granted.
Findings of Court:
The Court accepted the need for preventative actions including videography of the event and mandated that law enforcement adhere to legal provisions to prevent public order violations.
Issues: The main questions included the appropriateness of granting permission for the rally and the responsibilities of law enforcement to prevent hate speech and maintain order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the duty of police under Section 151 to arrest those intending to commit cognizable offences and the importance of maintaining public order during events; any obtained footage from the rally would be subject to judicial review.
Result: The case was listed for further hearing in two weeks.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Nizam Pasha, Ms.Rashmi Singh, Ms.Sumita Hazarika, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr.Tushar Mehta, SGI, Mr.K.M.Nataraj, ASG (NP), Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Mr.Rajat Nair, Mr.Kanu Agarwal, Mr.Varun Chugh, Mr.Mayank Pandey, Mr.Shreekant N.Terdal, Mr.Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr.Aaditya A.Pande, AOR, Mr.Bharat Baghla, Ms.Kirti Dadheech, Mr.Shantnu Sharma, Mr.Bhuvan Kapur, Mr.Rohit Khare, Mr.Atmaram Nadkarni, ASG, Mr.Sourabh Mishra, Ms.Deepti Arya, Ms.Arzu Paul, Ms.Manisha Gupta, Mr.S.S.Rebello, Mr.Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Ms.Garima Prashad, Sr.A.A.G., Ms.Ruchira Goel, AOR, Mr.Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Mr.Jatinder Kumar Sethi, DAG, Dr.Abhishek Atrey, Mr.Ashutosh Sharma, Ms.Ambika Atrey, Mr.Abhishek Atrey, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Kapil Sibal, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Nizam Pasha, Ms.Rashmi Singh, Ms.Sumita Hazarika, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr.Tushar Mehta, SGI, Mr.K.M.Nataraj, ASG (NP), Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Mr.Rajat Nair, Mr.Kanu Agarwal, Mr.Varun Chugh, Mr.Mayank Pandey, Mr.Shreekant N.Terdal, Mr.Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Mr.Aaditya A.Pande, AOR, Mr.Bharat Baghla, Ms.Kirti Dadheech, Mr.Shantnu Sharma, Mr.Bhuvan Kapur, Mr.Rohit Khare, Mr.Atmaram Nadkarni, ASG, Mr.Sourabh Mishra, Ms.Deepti Arya, Ms.Arzu Paul, Ms.Manisha Gupta, Mr.S.S.Rebello, Mr.Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Ms.Garima Prashad, Sr.A.A.G., Ms.Ruchira Goel, AOR, Mr.Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Mr.Jatinder Kumar Sethi, DAG, Dr.Abhishek Atrey, Mr.Ashutosh Sharma, Ms.Ambika Atrey, Mr.Abhishek Atrey, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks prohibition of rally and invocation of Section 151 CrPC — State contends permission will be conditional on maintaining public order and law. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
3. The court emphasizes the necessity of invoking preventive powers under Section 151 CrPC if circumstances warrant to prevent cognizable offences. (Para 7 )
4. Police officers are duty-bound to invoke the preventive arrest powers under Section 151 CrPC when necessary to prevent the commission of cognizable offences. (Para 7 )
5. Rally permitted subject to conditions against hate speech — directions for videography of the event and invocation of Section 151 CrPC if required. (Para 4 , 7 , 10 , 11 )
6. When can police officers arrest a person without a warrant to prevent a crime?
Under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a police officer may arrest a person without a warrant or Magistrate's order if they know of a design to commit a cognizable offence and believe the commission cannot be otherwise prevented. (Para 5 , 7 )
7. What conditions may be imposed on the permission to hold a public meeting to maintain order?
Permission for public meetings may be granted subject to conditions that no hate speech is delivered, the law is not defied, and public order is not disturbed. (Para 4 )
8. Can the court mandate the videography of a public event to ensure legal compliance?
Yes, the court can direct police authorities to conduct videography of a meeting and make the footage available to the court to monitor the conduct of the event. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
ORDER :
Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following order:
I.A.No.23156 of 2023
1. The petitioner/applicant filed this interlocutory application seeking following reliefs:-
"a) Direct that the aformentioned rally scheduled to be organized on 05.02.2023 by the Sakal Hindu Samaj in Mumbai and similar events/rallies that are intended to incite communal disharmony through hate speeches are prohibited;
b) Direct the Respondent No.6 (Director General of Police, Maharashtra) and such other authorities as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court to take adequate action so as to ensure that the rally scheduled to take place on 05.02.2023 in Mumbai is not allowed;
c) Direct that, in case the Respondent No.6 and such other authorities as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court to fail to stop the said rally scheduled on 05.02.2023 in Mumbai to explain what measures were taken by the Respondent No.6 and other authorities as per law and show cause why they failed to stop the said event;
d) Direct that, in case the Respondent No.6 and such other authorities as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court are unable to stop the aforementioned rally scheduled on 05.02.2023 in Mumbai from taking place, to record the same and place the footage, transcripts and translations before this Hon'ble Court;
e) Issue appropriate directions to Respondent No.6 and such other authorities as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Court to take action under the relevant penal statutes against the speakers, organizations and participants of the events mentioned at Paragraph 3 to 5 hereinabove;
f) Initiate contempt action against the erring officials who failed to take adequate preventive and consequential action qua the events mentioned in Paragraphs 3-5 hereinabove;"
2. We heard Mr.Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/petitioner and Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Maharashtra.
3. After hearing the learned senior counsel and learned Solicitor General, we are of the view that the interest of justice demands that the following order be passed.
4. We record the submission of Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State of Maharashtra that if permission is applied by Sakal Hindu Samaj for holding contemplated meeting on 05.02.2023 and if permission is granted it will be subject to the condition that nobody will make any hate speech and in defiance of law or disturbing the public order.
5. Mr.Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/petitioner drew our attention to Section 151 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. Section 151 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.') reads as under:-
"151. Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences.
(1) A police officer knowing of a design to commit any cognizable offence may arrest, without orders from a Magistrate and without a warrant, the person so designing, if it appears to such officer that the commission of the offence cannot be otherwise prevented.
(2) No person arrested under sub-section (1) shall be detained in custody for a period exceeding twenty-four hours from the time of his arrest unless his further detention is required or authorised under any other provisions of this Code or of any other law for the time being in force."
6. Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State of Maharashtra would submit that the State is not concerned with Section 151 of the Cr.P.C. alone but it is concerned with the entire gamut of law.
7. We also direct that the Officer(s), in case, permission is granted and, in case, the occasion arises for invoking the power under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Officer(s) concerned to invoke the said power and to act as per the mandate of Section 151 of the Cr.P.C.
8. Mr.Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appl
