A Magistrate must provide independent reasoning and demonstrate an imminent threat to public peace before curtailing a citizen's liberty through preventive detention.

ORDER :

The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against Annexure A1 preliminary order under Section 130 of the BNSS issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna requiring the petitioner to show cause why she should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with sureties to keep peace for a period of one year. The basis for issuing the order is Annexure A2 report of the Station House Officer, Kolathur Police Station stating that, by repeatedly indulging in illegal activities, petitioner is likely to cause breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity in the locality.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, among the crimes referred in Annexure A2 report, the allegation in Crime No.138 of 2024 registered at Thalapuzha Police Station is that the petitioner, along with 12 other individuals, held a procession to commemorate the death anniversary of a lady named Kavitha, who was associated with a Maoist group. The allegation in Crime No.123 of 2024 registered at the Nilambur Police Station is that on 22.01.2024, between 18:50 and 19:10 hrs, petitioner and other accused belonging to Purogamana Yuvajana Prasthanam organised a demonstration, disrupted traffic and shouted the slogan “In the land of Babari, Justice is only Masjid”. The 3^rd crime, registered as per Annexure A5, pertains to a protest by the petitioner and 7 others against an NIA raid in Pandikkad. According to the learned counsel, voicing one's opinion and expressing dissent is every citizen's fundamental right and petitioner's liberty cannot be curtailed, by reason of her participation in demonstrations and voicing her opinion. It is contended that, for invoking the power under Section 126 and compelling a person to execute bond under Section 130 of BNSS , the Sub Divisional Magistrate should reach a prima facie conclusion that the activities of that person is posing imminent threat to the peace and tranquillity in the locality. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on the decisions in Kuldip Singh Chawla and Others v. The State of Bihar [ 1988 Supreme (Pat) 107 ], Ashish Khanna v. State of Bihar Through S.D.M. [ 2007 Supreme (Pat) 1130 ] and Bijay Sankar Sen and Ors. v. State of Assam and Others [ 2021 Supreme (Gau) 415 ].

3. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, repeated registration of crimes against the petitioner for holding demonstrations and disrupting traffic shows that she is an imminent threat to peace and tranquillity. Hence, petitioner has to be restrained, by requiring her to execute the bond under Section 130 of BNSS .

4. The contentions advanced give rise to the question whether petitioner's liberty can be curtailed, by requiring her to execute bond for keeping peace for participating in demonstrations to protest against the policies of the Government. While answering this question, it has to be borne in mind that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees to every citizen freedom of speech and expression, right to assemble peaceably without arms and to form associations or unions. Indeed, those rights are subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be exercised contrary to public order, decency, morality or against the sovereignty, integrity and security of the State.

5. A perusal of the impugned order shows that, other than relying on Annexure A2 report, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not formed an independent opinion that the activities of the petitioner are an imminent threat to the peace and tranquillity in the locality. As held by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Monghyr And others [1970 3 SCC 746], even