Back‘Indefinite occupation of public ways for protests unacceptable’
SC judgement confirms the right to dissent while drawing boundaries for public protests, say experts
PremiumThe Supreme Court on Wednesday held that public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely for protesting or expressing dissent. The landmark judgment was passed on a batch of petitions seeking directions for removing protesters from a public road in Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh.
The bench headed by Justice S.K. Kaul held that though Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantees the right to assemble peacefully without arms, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.
The bench, also comprising Justice K.M. Joseph, drew a guard rail for protest. It held that while the court appreciates the existence of the right to peaceful protests against legislation “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".
The judgment sets precedence, but it has also set boundaries for spaces to protest in the future, according to analysts.
“We have no hesitation in concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else, for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions," the two-judge division bench observed in its 13-page judgment.
The demonstration at Shaheen Bagh was the centre of the dissent against the contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, or CAA. The protests, which were led by women, began in December 2019 and saw thousands of people come out in support over the next two months. The protests held on the main road near Kalindi Kunj led to frequent traffic jams and roads being blocked.
The Supreme Court had in February appointed interlocutors to convince protestors to move to a different venue. The protest ended only after the nationwide lockdown was announced following the coronavirus outbreak.
The top court also pulled up the police administration for its inaction and inability to control the protesters. The court can only adjudicate the legality of the actions and are not meant to give a shoulder to the administration to fire their guns from, the apex court said.
The judges also highlighted the boons and fallacies of digitally-fuelled movements. Its ability to scale up quickly while evading the usual restrictions of censorship has a flipside where a highly polarized environment is created, resulting in no constructive outcome, the bench said. Drawing a parallel with the Shaheen Bagh demonstration, the court said that the protest started against the CAA, gained momentum across cities to become a movement of solidarity for the women and their cause, but came with its fair share of chinks as was said by the interlocutors, and caused inconvenience to commuters.
“The judgment sets precedence as it is not saying that you don’t have the right to protest, but you cannot protest in a visible place. It means that you will be given a space to protest. The judgment has also drawn boundaries to protesting in public. It confirms the right to protest, but the place will be of the state’s choice. There have been a lot of places that have gained importance through previous protests. Places, such as Shaheen Bagh, Tiananmen Square, and Tahrir Square, are known for the protests that were held," said Manisha Priyam, a New Delhi-based political analyst.
japnam.b@livemint.com
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
