JUDGMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, CJ.

1. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the Order dated 15.01.2026 passed by ld. Single Judge in WPA No. 736 of 2026 whereby his writ petition was disposed of by ld. Single Judge by issuing certain directions.

Factual Matrix:

2. The appellant/petitioner an elected member of Legislative Assembly preferred an application seeking permission to organise a peaceful sit in demonstration in front of Nabanna (Head Quarter of State Government) on 16.01.2026. It is stated in the application that 50 members of Legislative Assembly shall participate in the said demonstration. In turn, the police administration by letter dated 12.01.2026 rejected the said application by assigning certain reasons. This rejection order became subject matter of challenge in WPA No. 736 of 2026. The ld. Single Judge opined that petitioner deserves permissions to hold such demonstration at a different place, i.e. Mandirtala Bus Stand from 10.00 A.M. to 4.00 P.M. subject to certain conditions mentioned in the order.

Contention of appellant:

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that right to protest is a fundamental right in a constitutional democracy. By placing heavy reliance on the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Himmat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmadabad and Another reported in (1973) 1 SCC 227, Shri Billwadal Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel urged that freedom of assembly in open spaces and public streets are essential elements of a democratic system and forms part of the tradition of our national life. He placed reliance on the said Judgments extensively to bolster the submission that the rejection letter issued by police in bad in law. An interlocutory order passed by coordinate bench in WPA (P) 360 of 2024 is relied upon to contend that this court permitted demonstration/protest near Nabanna. Thus, there should not be any impediment in permitting the present petitioners to sit in demonstration in front of Nabanna. Furthermore, it is urged that in WPA 15915 of 2024 (Suvendu Adhikari vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) on 03.07.2024 the ld. Advocate General entered appearance and urged that petitioner will be permitted to conduct sit in demonstration/Dharna on 14^th July, 2024 for a period of four hours. He submits that there should not be any difference in stand in the present matter and it is difficult to gather while State is taking a different view in the present matter when nature of demonstration and place of demonstration is exactly same. Shri Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel further submits that prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.PC (Section 163 of BNSS) cannot be issued for an unlimited period. He placed reliance on certain paragraphs of the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re (2012) 5 SCC 1. He also referred certain paragraph of Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, In Re vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors. (2020) 10 SCC 439 and argued that the petitioner has a valuable right to sit in „Dharna‟ in front of „Nabanna‟. He has no difficulty if a limited area is earmarked for this purpose beyond which the demonstrators will not move. During demonstration, sound system will not be used and only 50 persons will participate in the demonstration. In this backdrop, the petitioners may be permitted to sit in demonstration at the desired place. The order impugned needs to be challenged because for any future „Dharnas‟ proposed in front of Nabanna, the impugned rejection letter will come in the way of the petitioner.

4. Shri Billwadal Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel further submits that by exercising the power under the Police Act, the State Government can “regulate” the permission sought for demonstration but cannot totally frustrate the purpose by putting unreasonable contentions.

Contention of the State:

5. The learned Advocate General for the State urged that it is a misconceived notion that the petitioner has