September 21, 2020 4:04:18 pm
Gaeg’s plea has said that several other arterial roads in Delhi have faced traffic congestion due to the protest in Shaheen Bagh. (File photo)
There can be no “universal policy” on the right to protest and possible restrictions, as it is also necessary to balance it with acts such as roadblocks because the situation can “vary” from case to case, the Supreme Court said Monday. .
The high court’s observation came while reserving the verdict on a series of allegations against protests against the CAA that had led to the blocking of a road in Shaheen Bagh in the national capital last December.
The situation subsequently normalized due to the pandemic fear of COVID-19 and subsequent observance of the protocol.
“There were some supervening circumstances that came into play and it wasn’t anyone’s hand. Almighty God Himself intervened, ”said a bench made up of judges SK Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari.
Taking note of the submissions by lawyers, including Shashank Deo Sudhi, the court said: “We have to balance the right to protest and the road blockade. We have to deal with the problem. Your policy cannot be universal as the situation may vary from case to case.
“In parliamentary democracy, protest can occur 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 faced difficulties. This type 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 riots created.”
“We have the right to protest. The state machinery 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 that 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 seeking directions from 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.
It has requested monitoring of the situation in Shaheen Bagh, where several women are sitting in protest, by a retired Supreme Court judge or a sitting judge of 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 Register 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 protesters who are threatening the existential efficacy of democracy and the rule of law and have already taken the situation of law and order in their hands. own hands”. said the plea.
He said the Shaheen Bagh protest is “undoubtedly within constitutional standards” but has lost its legality as constitutional protection was being “blatantly and brazenly circumvented 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 not to allow the abuse and misuse of public places for ulterior purposes and in bad faith, such as organizing a protest against the constitutional amendment in the heart of the capital city, and therefore, cause incalculable hardships and difficulties to the citizens common people, ”he said.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines
For the latest news about India, download the Indian Express app.
.
