A bank run by Judge SK Kaul stated that “dissident demonstrations will have to take position only in designated locations”
Protesters attend a demonstration on a new citizenship law in Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi, on February 2, 2020. – Reuters file photo
Satya PrakashTribune News Service New Delhi, 7 October
Now that “democracy and dissent go hand in hand,” the Supreme Court of Justice on Wednesday passed that roads and public spaces cannot be blocked indefinitely and that dissenting demonstrations only take place in designated locations.
In deciding the petitions calling for the dismissal of protesters opposing Shaheen Bagh’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Delhi, a three-judge panel headed by Judge SK Kaul said: “We have array . . . we do not hesitate to conclude that such a public road profession, whether on the site in consultation or elsewhere for demonstrations is not appropriate and management takes steps to keep spaces free of usurpations or obstacles. »
On 10 January, the CAA notified the criteria for granting Indian citizenship through naturalization to Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and Jainists suffering from devout persecution in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who arrived in India before 31 December 2014. 22, the court refused to suspend the activities of the CAA and NPR.
Although protesters who blocked the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh section, adding the Okhla underground passage since 15 December 2019, were expelled on 24 March following the coVID-19 lockout, the high court had chosen to keep the case on hold to explain the law’s position on the issue.
The court criticized the government for not making any decisions, saying, “Unfortunately, despite a long time frame, there is no negotiation or action through the administration, which justifies our intervention.
The Supreme Court said: “The way management deserves to act is its duty and it will have to not hide court orders or seek assistance in the exhaustion of its administrative functions. The courts rule on the legality of the movements and are not intended to give the hand to fire their weapons. »
To underscore the importance of the right to nonviolent protest, a court headed by Judge SK Kaul quoted Pulitzer Prize winner Walter Lippmann saying, “In a democracy, opposition is not only tolerated as constitutional, yet it will have to remain as indispensable. “
However, he said, “while we appreciate the right to demonstrate peacefully in opposition to legislation, we will have to make it clear that public roads and public spaces cannot be occupied in this way and in this way indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand. ” However, dissenting demonstrations will have to take position only in designated locations.
Rejecting the claim of protesters opposing the CAA, the bench said: “This case not even about demonstrations taking positions in an unsused area, but about a blockade of a public road that caused serious inconvenience to travelers. We cannot settle for the applicants’ claim that an indeterminate number of others can meet every time they decide to protest.
Noting that the use of virtual infrastructure has allowed movements to embrace their aspirations without leaders and escape the same old censorship restrictions, the Supreme Court said, “The crucial aspect is that social media channels are full of risks and can lead to the creation of polarized environments, which see parallel conversations spread without seemingly constructive results. “
The court said that it should not be forgotten that the way and form of dissent opposed to colonial rule in the afterlife cannot be equated with dissent in an autonomous democracy, because “our constitutional formula is accompanied by the right to protest and explicit dissent, but with the legal responsibility of certain duties. “
It sought to emphasize that the right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly under article 19(a) (a) and article 19 (1) (b) of the Constitution are subject to moderate restrictions, adding those in the interests of Indian sovereignty and integrity and public order, and the regulation of the police government involved in this regard.
“Every basic right, whether individual or class, does not exist in isolation and will have to be balanced with all other opposing rights,” he said.
First, the lawsuit was filed with the Delhi High Court, which had refused to include an express order; however, he stated that the government had all the powers, jurisdiction and authority to traffic anywhere demonstrations or riots took place, in the general public. Interest.
The Tribune has two sister publications, Punjabi Tribune (in Punjabi) and Dainik Tribune (in Hindi).