ANITA THAKUR & ORS. versus GOVT. OF J & K & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 50 · Decided: 12-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E. 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 50 
ANITA THAKUR & ORS. 
v. 
GOVT. OF J & K & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 118 of2007) 
AUGUST 12, 2016 
[A. K.· SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
Constitution of India : Arts. J9(1j(a), (b) and (c) - Right to 
hold peaceful demonstration/Right to assemble/Right of free 
movement - Allegation by writ petitioners that Respondent-
authorities manhandled them while they held peaceful protest march 
- Held: The right to hold peaceful demonstrations in order to air 
grievances is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the 
sovereignty and integrity of India, as well as public order - Thus, 
while the citizens are guaranteed fimdamental right of speech, right 
to assemble for the purpose of carrying peacefit! protest processions 
and right of free movement, reasonable restrictions on such right 
can be put by law - On facts, it was the petitionerslprotesiors who 
took the law into their hands - However, the police personnel 
continued the use of force beyond limits even after controlling the 
mob and thus misused their power - To that extent, fundamental 
right of the petitioners was violated due to police excesses -
Compensation awarded to the petitioners - Police excesses -
Compensation. 
Human rights : Use of excessive police force - Held: Amounts 
to violation of human rights and human dignity. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. Holding peaceful demonstration in order to air 
their grievances and to see that their voice is heard in the relevant 
quarters is the right of the people. Such a right can be traced to 
the fundamental freedom that is guaranteed under Articles 
19(l)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. Article 19(l)(a) 
confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this country, this 
provision ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan, albeit 
in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive 
language. Article 19(1)(b) confers the right to assemble and, thus, 
guarantees that all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully 
and without arms. Right t~ move freely given under Article 
50 
ANITA THAKUR & ORS. v. GOVT. OF J & K & ORS. 
19(1)(d), again, ensures that the petitioners could take out 
peaceful march. The right to peaceful protest is now recognized 
as a fundamental right in the Constitution. However, the said 
rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the 
sovereignty and integrity of India, as well as public order. It is for 
this reason, the State authorities many a times designate 
particular areas and routes, dedicating them for the purpose of 
holding pnblic meetings. [Paras 8 and 9) [56-H; 57-A-B, C-E) 
2. Provisions of IPC and Cr.P.C. are in the form of statutory 
provisions which give powers to the State to ensure that such 
public assemblies, protests, dharnas or marches are peaceful and 
they do not become 'u11/awf ul'. At the same time, while exercising 
such powers, the authorities are supposed to act within the limits 
of law and cannot indulge into excesses. In the present case, 
initially it was the petitioners/ protestors who took the law into 
their hands by turning their peaceful agitation into a violent one 
and in the process becoming unruly and pelting stones at the 
police. On the other hand, even the police personnel continued 
the use of force beyond limits after they had controlled the mob 
and thus misused their power. To that extent, fundamental right 
of the petitioners, due to police excess, has been violated. In 
such circumstances, in exercise of power under Article 32 of the 
Constitution, compensation awarded to the petitioners. [Paras 
11 and 14) [58-C; 60-D; 61-A-B) 
Karam Singh v. Hardayal Singh. 1979 Crl.L.J. 1211 -
approved. 
Saheli, A Women:~ Resources Cenrer. Through Ms. 
Nalini Bhanot & Ors. vs. Co111111issioner of Police. Delhi 
Polic_e Headquarters & Ors.(1990) 1 SCC 422 : 1989 
(0) Suppl. SCR 488; .loginder Kaur i·s. The Punjab 
State & Ors. (1969) ACJ 28; The State of Rajasthan 
vs. Mst. Vidhywati & Anr.(l 962) Supp 2 SCR 989; S111t. 
Nilabati Behera @ Lalita Behera (through the Supre111e 
Court Legal A id Committee) rs. State of Orissa & 
Ors.(1993) 2 sec 746 : 1993 (2) SCR 581 -
explained. 
Case Law Reference 
1979 Crl.L.J. 1211 
approved 
Para 11 
51 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
52 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1-1 
SUPREME COUIU REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
1989 (0) Suppl. SCR 488 
explained 
Para 14 
(1969) ACJ 28 
explained 
Para 14 
(1962) Sup
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.