Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra, JJ.
Rajat Gangwar – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 2497 of 2019
Decided On : 27-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Kunal Shah, Abhinav Bhattacharya.
For the Respondent: Nimai Das.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the protection of fundamental rights, the balance between individual rights and public order, and the responsibility of protesters to ensure peaceful demonstrations.
Headnote:
PIL - Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 - Citizenship Act, 1955 - Sections 2(1)(b), 6B, 7D, 18(2)(eei) - Third Schedule - The court discussed the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and its amendments to the Citizenship Act, 1955, focusing on the definition of 'illegal migrant', special provisions for citizenship, and the cancellation of registration for Overseas Citizen of India cardholders. The court also highlighted the qualifications for naturalisation and the power of the Central Government to make rules. The judgment emphasized the protection of fundamental rights, the balance between individual rights and public order, and the responsibility of protesters to ensure peaceful demonstrations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking guidelines for peaceful demonstrations, setting up of a Claims Commissioner, and uploading information on detainees in the aftermath of protests following the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The petitioner claimed to espouse the cause of residents of State of U.P. including peaceful protesters, persons who suffered loss of property and life due to protests, and injured police personnel. The protests ensued after the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, resulting in damage to public and private property, loss of life, and injuries to several persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the relief sought by the petitioner was not justified at that stage and dismissed the writ petition in limine. The court emphasized the protection of fundamental rights, the balance between individual rights and public order, and the responsibility of protesters to ensure peaceful demonstrations. The court also noted that the State had not violated any statutory provision and did not find any infringement or lack of transparency on the part of the State.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included the need for guidelines for peaceful demonstrations, setting up of a Claims Commissioner, and uploading information on detainees in the aftermath of protests following the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. The petitioner also raised concerns about the violation of fundamental rights of peaceful protesters, the duty of the State to balance competing interests, and the failure of the State to conceptualize guidelines for granting permission and regulating protesters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the protection of fundamental rights, the balance between individual rights and public order, and the responsibility of protesters to ensure peaceful demonstrations. The court also highlighted the need for compliance with statutory restrictions, the obligation of the State to maintain law and order, and the responsibility of protesters to prevent intrusion of miscreants during demonstrations.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed in limine as the relief sought by the petitioner was not justified at that stage. The court found that the State had not violated any statutory provision and did not find any infringement or lack of transparency on the part of the State.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri. Kunal Shah and Sri. Abhinav Bhattacharya, Advocates for petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri. B.P. Singh Kachhawah, Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner-Rajat Gangwar, has filed this writ petition claiming himself to be an Advocate registered with U.P. Bar Council, Enrollment No. U.P. (G) 6734/2014 and Advocate on Roll No. 1494/2016, practicing with Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Advocate, at Lucknow.
3. The writ petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as PIL) with following prayer:
“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus directing the Respondents to formulate guidelines for grant of permission of peaceful demonstrations after taking into consideration the competing interests of various stake holders.
(b) Issue a suitable order for setting up of Claims Commissioner in the light of the guidelines stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Destruction of Public and Private Properties vs. State of A.P. and Others (2009) 5 SCC 212.
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a mandamus directing the Respondents to upload information on accessible electronic database with respect to detainees who have been arrested in the aftermath of the protests that ensued in the State of Uttar Pradesh after the enactment of Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, status reports of the investigation/ trials and provide visitation rights to their lawyers and friends, as per law.
(d) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Petitioner claims to espouse the cause of residents of State of U.P. including peaceful protesters, persons who have suffered loss of property and life due to protests, turning violent, and injured police personnel of State of U.P. Petitioner also seeks enforcement of various guidelines laid down by Supreme Court in Destruction of Public and Private Properties vs. State of A.P. and Others, 2009 (5) SCC 212, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2018 SC 3476 and Kodungallur Film Society and Others vs. Union of India and Others, 2018 (10) SCC 713.
5. Brief facts stated in the writ petition are that, on 19.07.2016 Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 was introduced in Lok Sabha and on 12.08.2016 it was referred to Joint Parliamentary Committee. It was passed by Lok Sabha on 08.01.2019 but due to dissolution of Lok Sabha, Bill lapsed. Later on Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 was introduced on 09.12.2019 in 17th Lok Sabha and passed on 10.12.2019. On 11.12.2019 Rajya Sabha also passed Bill. It received assent of President of India on 12.12.2012 and became Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “CAA 2019”). It is also stated in Para 15 of writ petition that vires of CAA, 2019 has been challenged before Supreme Court by filing writ petitions under Article 32 of Constitution of India. On 18.12.2019 Supreme Court issued notices and has fixed 22.01.2020 for hearing. In the meantime several protests ensued across the country which included protests held at Jamia Millia Islamia University, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as JMIU) and Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as AMU). In State of U.P. also similar protests ensued at Lucknow on 19.12.2019 which turned violent resulting in damage to public property as also loss of life and injuries to several persons. Print and Electronic Media have reported information of spreading of similar protests which turned violent in different cities of State of U.P. i.e. Aligarh, Meerut, Muzaffarnagar, Bijnor, Bulandshahr, Kanpur, Rampur, Gorakhpur and Varanasi, wherein about 17 persons lost their life, to the best knowledge of petitioner. Pol
