Key Points :
- The Supreme Court in its verdict on Shaheen Bagh said that while the right to protest is a fundamental right, public places cannot be occupied indefinitely for staging protests and demonstrations.
- The Court passed this judgement on a plea filed by advocate Amit Sahni in February appealing for the lifting of the road blockade in the Shaheen Bagh–Kalindi Kunj stretch.
- The Court slammed police officials and the administration for neither negotiating with the protesters nor taking any action against them through legal means.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the right to protest and express dissent against the government is a fundamental right, but not absolute and also that public places cannot be occupied indefinitely to stage protests and demonstrations.
The Court was presiding over a plea filed by advocate Amit Sahni in February appealing for the lifting of the road blockade in the Shaheen Bagh–Kalindi Kunj stretch.
The ruling came in context of the the protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, or CAA, in south Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh that started on December 15, 2019 and ended on March 23 due to the emergency lockdown imposed in the country to fight Covid-19 and not due to police action. The stage and other facilities installed in the place by the protesters were thereafter removed by the police.
“We have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone,” a three-judge bench headed by justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said. The protest in Shaheen Bagh blocked the public way and caused grave inconvenience to commuters and that’s not acceptable,the bench, also comprising justices Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, held. Such protests should be allowed only in areas specifically designated for the purpose, it said. The protest in Shaheen Bagh blocked one of the key passages to Noida, the court said.
The court also criticised the authorities for failing to disperse protesters who occupied a public space in the city for longer than three months saying they should have taken timely action to keep public areas free of encroachments. The administration failed to start negotiations with the protesters nor did it act against them that warranted the court’s intervention, the bench said. Law and order in Delhi comes under the Union government, and Delhi Police reports to it.
“The courts adjudicate the legality of the actions and are not meant to give a shoulder to the administration to fire their guns from,” it said in the verdict. The Supreme court also stated that although India gained independence due to the seeds of protest sown during the freedom struggle, the mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy. Indians have the right to protest and express dissent, but with certain obligations, the court said.
“Article 19, one of the cornerstones of the Constitution of India, confers upon its citizens two treasured rights, i.e., the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b). These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, which, inter alia, pertain to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order,” the judgment stated.
The CAA, which was passed on December 12, 2019, replaced the Citizenship Act, 1955, to fast-track the grant of Indian citizenship to members of the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities from the Muslim-majority nations of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The exclusion of Muslims triggered widespread protests across the country as did the linking of citizenship with religion leading to many accusing the current government of being Anti-Islamic.
Petitioner Sahni had stated that while people have the right to protest, it was subject to reasonable restrictions and protesters cannot be allowed to occupy public roads indefinitely. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, agreed with the petitioner. “Every right is qualified,” Mehta argued.
This judgement also made some interesting observations on the nature of the protest stating “while the women protesters had sat in protest inside the tent, there was a huge periphery comprising mainly of male protesters, volunteers and bystanders who all seemed to have a stake in the continuance of the blockade of the road.”, noting that there was no common leadership helming the protests.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court made some interesting observations on the nature of the protest itself. The protest had won the limelight because most participants in the sit-in were women.
“It appeared that an absence of leadership guiding the protest and the presence of various groups of protesters had resulted in many influencers who were acting possibly at cross-purposes with each other. Thus, the Shaheen Bagh protest perhaps no longer remained the sole and empowering voice of women, who also appeared to no longer have the ability to call off the protest themselves,” the judgment observed.
“This is against all oppressed people who try to protest against injustice,” said Abid Sheikh, one of the organisers of the protest expressing reservation on the part of the verdict that public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely. However, the organisers of the sit-in at Shaheen Bagh have welcomed the ruling that the right to protest is a fundamental right.
Speaking to Hindustan Times, 82 year old protester Bilkis, popularly known as dadi (grandmother) of Shaheen Bagh who was included in Time magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people of 2020, said “We respect the judgment. We will not be protesting now due to the Covid-19 crisis and our first priority is to fight against the pandemic. However, we still want the government to talk to us and repeal CAA.”
