NEW DELHI: There can be no “universal policy” on the right to protest and possible restrictions, as it also needs to be balanced with acts such as roadblocks because the situation can “vary” from case to case. Supreme Court he said Monday.
The higher court’s observation came while reserving the verdict on a number of allegations against the anti-CAA protests which had caused a roadblock in Shaheen Bagh in the national capital last December.
The situation later normalized due to fear of the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent observance of the protocol.
“There were some supervening circumstances that came into play and it was no one’s hand. Almighty God intervened,” said a bench made up of judges SK Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari.
Taking note of submissions from lawyers, including Shashank Deo Sudhi, the court said: “We have to balance the right to protest and the roadblock. We have to address the problem. Their policy cannot be universal as the situation may vary. as appropriate, as appropriate.
“In parliamentary democracy, protest can take place in Parliament and on the roads, but on the road it has to be peaceful.”
Amit Sahni, one of the attorneys who pleaded guilty in the case, said that such protests should not have been allowed in the broader public interest.
“This was allowed to continue for more than 100 days and people had difficulties. This kind of incident should not have happened. Yesterday in Haryana there was ‘Chakka Jam’ in Haryana. They also called Bharat Bandh from September 24 to 25,” he said.
Lawyer Mehmood Pracha, who appeared as an auditor, said that there was a right to peaceful protest and that “some people from a political party went and their disturbances created.”
“We have the right to protest. The machinery of the state is not sacrosanct. Members of a political party went there with the police and created the situation,” he said.
In reserving the verdict, the court said it had designated “interlocutors” as an experiment and had suggested some measures that can be considered.
He said that the experiment of sending interlocutors may or may not have been successful and that the Covid-19 situation may also have an effect on the situation.
Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Center, said that the right to protest cannot be absolute and that there are some lawsuits in this regard.
The high court had previously heard pleas, presented by Sahni, former BJP MLA Nand Kishore Garg and Ashutosh Dubey, against the anti-CAA protests in Shaheen Bagh after the Delhi assembly elections on February 8.
Sahni had approached the high court for instructions on how to Delhi Police to ensure a smooth flow of traffic on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which was blocked by anti-CAA protesters on December 15.
The higher court had urged the local authorities to address the situation taking law and order into account.
Sahni has filed a special license petition in the superior court against the superior court order.
The statement requested instructions from the police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch.
He has sought oversight of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting in protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge from the Delhi High Court to avoid any violence.
On the other hand, Garg, through his lawyer Shashank Deo Sudhi, had filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking instructions to the authorities to remove the protesters from Shaheen Bagh.
Restrictions had been imposed on the Kaindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch and the Okhla underpass, which were closed on December 15 last year due to protests against the CAA and the National Registry of Citizens (NRC).
Gaeg’s plea has said that several other arterial roads in Delhi have faced traffic congestion due to the protest in Shaheen Bagh.
By saying that the law enforcement machinery has been “hostage to the whims and fantasies of protesters,” the petition has sought to establish guidelines for protests that lead to the obstruction of public places.
“It is disappointing that the state machinery is silenced and is a silent bystander to the vandalism and vandalism of the protesters who are threatening the existential efficacy of democracy and the rule of law and had already taken the situation of law and order in their hands. own hands, “he added. said the plea.
He said Shaheen Bagh protest it is “undoubtedly within the constitutional parameter” but has lost its legality as constitutional protection was being “openly and blatantly mocked and violated.”
The state has a duty to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, who have faced problems due to the road blockade, he said.
“Therefore, it is urgently required that the abuse and misuse of public places for ulterior and bad faith purposes is not allowed, such as organizing a protest against the amendment of the constitution in the heart of the capital city and thus causing incalculable hardships and difficulties to the citizens. common people, “he said.
On video: SC reserves trial in Shaheen Bagh protest case
.
