Repetitive Use of Section 144 CrPC to Curb Protests Without Justification is Arbitrary: Gujarat High Court - 2026-05-22

Silence Over Rights: Gujarat High Court Reins in Repetitive "Section 144" Orders

In a significant judgment addressing the intersection of administrative power and democratic dissent, the High Court of Gujarat has struck a blow against the routine, non-transparent use of restrictive orders by police authorities. The court declared that the repetitive imposition of Section 144 of the CrPC—often used to stifle public protest—cannot be treated as a "semi-permanent" tool by the state to bypass the rule of law.

The Background of the Dispute

The litigation was sparked by the 2019 protests in Ahmedabad against the Citizenship Act. The petitioners, lead by Navdeep Mathur, challenged the systemic practice of the Ahmedabad Police Commissionerate in issuing repetitive notifications prohibiting assembly of four or more people. The petitioners argued that these notifications were issued one after another, creating a "permanent" state of restriction that circumvented the two-month legal limit established by the Code of Criminal Procedure (now replaced by the BNSS). Crucially, the petitioners contended that they were never notified of these orders, which were rarely publicized effectively, leading to unwarranted criminal prosecution of citizens exercising their fundamental rights.

Legal Arguments: Dissent vs. Control

The petitioners argued that the police had failed to demonstrate any "emergent situation" justifying the use of Section 144. They asserted that the authorities had essentially weaponized the section to suppress peaceful expression.

The State, however, insisted that the petition was infructuous, noting that the specific impugned orders had long expired. They defended the need for such orders as a essential mechanism to maintain public order and tranquililty in sensitive zones, arguing that the police possessed the necessary discretion for such interventions.

The Court’s Analysis: Safeguards are Not Formality

Justice M.R. Mengdey was unequivocal in his rejection of the State’s procedural lethargy. Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India , the Court underscored that the powers granted under Section 144 are meant for genuine emergencies—not for administrative convenience.

The Court noted that the authorities failed to conduct any prior inquiry to justify the need for such blanket bans. "The safeguards and procedure prescribed in the Section are not an empty formality," Justice Mengdey wrote, adding that the state’s practice of issuing fresh orders immediately upon the expiry of previous ones was a clear attempt to circumvent statutory limits.

Key Observations

The judgment is marked by several scathing observations on the conduct of authorities:

• On the misuse of administrative orders: "The authorities in the present case have evolved a unique mechanism of issuing consecutive orders for circumventing the statutory mandate. By resorting such tactics, the authorities have tried to restrict the rights of the citizens beyond the permissible limits."
• On the lack of emergency: "It is only in an extreme extraordinary situation, when other measures are bound to fail, that a total prohibition or suspension of their rights may be resorted to as a last measure."
• On the need for transparency: "The Notifications questioned in the present petition do not bear any reasons given by the authorities for issuing the same. When, by exercise of powers under S.144 of the Code, the fundamental rights or constitutional rights of a class of citizens are being affected, the exercise needs to be transparent."

The Verdict and Its Impact

Allowing the petition, the Court rejected the State's claim that the matter was infructuous. It held that the validity of the expired orders remained relevant because the petitioners and others face ongoing prosecution based on those very notifications.

The ruling sets a precedent for future police conduct, requiring that any such future orders be given wide publicity—including on social media platforms—to ensure citizens are fully aware of the restrictions placed upon them. By re-establishing the necessity of "emergent" conditions and transparent communication, the Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed that the constitutional right to protest cannot be silenced by the perpetual, unreasoned shadow of administrative orders.