AMIT SAHNI versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 07-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
AMIT SAHNI
v.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3282 of 2020)
OCTOBER 07, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Arts.19(1)(a), (b) – Right to protest,
subject to reasonable restrictions – Citizenship (Amendment) Act,
2019 – Protests in different parts of the country – Kalindi Kunj-
Shaheen Bagh stretch, including Okhla underpass blocked in Delhi
– Public roads encroached – Writ Petition filed before Delhi High
Court – Disposed of with directions to authorities – Situation
remained the same – Present appeal; intervention applications by
various parties – Two interlocutors appointed, their efforts not
successful – Arrival of Coronavirus pandemic – Site cleared with
some police action – Held: Reliefs in the present proceedings though
worked themselves out – Art.19 confers upon its citizens, the right
to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble
peacefully without arms – However, these rights are subject to
reasonable restrictions – Present case was not even one of protests
taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a
public way causing grave inconvenience to commuters – Such kind
of occupation of public ways for protests is not acceptable – Public
ways, spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: Constitutional scheme comes with the right to
protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain
duties. 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, in cohesion, enable every citizen to
assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions
of the State. These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions,
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 151
151
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
which, inter alia, pertain to the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India and public order, and to the regulation by the
concerned police authorities in this regard. Each fundamental
right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in isolation
and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right. It was
in this respect, that in this case, an attempt was made by the
Court to reach a solution where the rights of protestors were to
be balanced with that of commuters. However, while appreciating
the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation,
it is made 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 present case was not even one of protests taking
place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way
which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. The plea of
the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can
assemble whenever they choose to protest cannot be accepted.
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 High Court also should have
monitored the matter rather than disposing of the Writ Petition
and creating a fluid situation.[Paras 16, 17, 19 and 20][158-A-G'
159-E-F]
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India &
Anr. (2018) 17 SCC 324 : [2018] 11 SCR 586; In re
Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012) 5 SCC 1 : [2012]
4 SCR 971; Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of
Police, Ahmedabad & Anr. (1973) 1 SCC 227 : [1973]
2 SCR  266 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1973] 2 SCR  266
relied on
Para 14
[2018] 11 SCR 586
relied on
Para 15
[2012] 4 SCR 971
relied on
Para 16
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
153
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3282
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.01.2020 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 429 of 2020.
Tushar Mehta,SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,ASG, Balraj Dewan,
Abhishek Chauhan, Ms. Rajshree Dudey, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Anmol
Chandan, Pranay Ranjan, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Rajat Nair, Kanu Agrawal
for B. V. Balaram Das, Sanjay R.Hegde, Mansoor Ali, Chirag M.Shroff,
Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.