The right to protest in public places is not absolute and public places cannot be occupied indefinitely for such protests, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a case highlighting the problems faced by the general public due to the roadblock in Shaheen Bagh. in South Delhi by protesters. who were opposed to the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
Dissent and democracy go hand in hand, but protests must take place in designated areas, ruled a bench of three judges led by Judge Sanjay Kishan Kaul.
“The occupation of public places for protests is not acceptable. The authorities must guarantee the elimination of the occupation of public places, “said the court, which was also made up of judges Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari.
However, how the occupants should be transferred to open public places will be decided by government authorities and they should not hide or wait for court orders to carry out their duties, the higher court added.
The ruling came in a statement filed by lawyer Amit Sahni in February seeking the lifting of the road blockade on the Shaheen Bagh – Kalindi Kunj stretch due to protests in Shaheen Bagh by opponents of the CAA.
The CAA, which passed on December 12, 2019, amended Section 2 of the Citizenship Act of 1955 so that anyone belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian communities of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan be eligible to apply for Indian citizenship by naturalization, even if they were illegal immigrants.
However, the Muslim community was excluded from the scope of this amendment, thus preventing Muslim illegal immigrants from taking advantage of the opportunity to apply for Indian citizenship, a benefit that the amendment extended to illegal immigrants from the other six communities. The exclusion of Muslims sparked widespread protests across the country, as did the linking of citizenship with religion.
Shaheen Bagh was the epicenter of such protests in the national capital. The protests in Shaheen Bagh started on December 15, 2019 and continued for more than 3 months.
Sahni said that while people have the right to protest, it is subject to reasonable restrictions and protesters cannot be allowed to occupy public roads indefinitely. She argued that the right to protest should not make the general public uncomfortable.
Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who represents the central government, also agreed with the petitioner and stated that the right to protest cannot be absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.
“Every right is qualified,” Mehta had argued.
During the hearing of the case, the court had tried to resolve the problem on February 17 by sending two lawyers, lead lawyer Sanjay Hegde and lawyer Sadhana Ramachandran to mediate with the protesters. However, the talks did not yield any results.
.
