Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI
Randall Sequeira – Appellant
Versus
Collector and District Magistrate, Rayagada – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. constitutional rights violation under article 19. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 3) |
| 3. disproportionate restrictions on rights. (Para 4) |
| 4. context of the exclusion order. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 5. assessment of public order justification. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 6. proportionality and necessity in restrictions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. less drastic alternatives to exclusion. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. lack of justification for lengthy ban. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 9. procedural unreasonableness and transparency. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 10. government's duty to facilitate dissent. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 11. regulation instead of prohibition for protests. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 12. quashing of exclusion order and right to protest. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 13. case-specific operational guidelines issued. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 14. conclusion and vacation of earlier order. (Para 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the exclusion order dated 05.06.2025 issued under Section 163 of the BNSS , which barred him from entering Rayagada district, alleging it violates his constitutional rights under Article 19.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX O
An exclusion order against a citizen must respect the right to due process, be proportionate to the threat, and must not penalize lawful protest activities without concrete evidence of imminent dange....
The right to peaceful protest is subject to reasonable restrictions to maintain public order and safety, balancing individual rights against community interests.
The right to protest is constitutional but must be balanced against public order and administrative feasibility; absolute insistence on location can be unreasonable.
The right to assemble peacefully is fundamental and cannot be prohibited without reasonable justification, emphasizing the need for a balance between individual rights and public order.
The fundamental right to protest cannot be denied without sufficient justification; demonstrators must ensure no obstruction to business operations.
Court upheld prohibitory order based on law and order concerns, reaffirming state's power to impose reasonable restrictions on free assembly.
The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, and proceedings against leaders of a peaceful protest were quashed due to lack of direct....
The impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, and it infringed upon the Petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1), Articles 25 an....
Regulation of protests and demonstrations to prevent traffic congestion and inconvenience to citizens.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
