MAZDOOR KISAN SHAKTI SANGATHAN versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 586 · Decided: 23-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
MAZDOOR KISAN SHAKTI SANGATHAN
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.1153 of 2017)
JULY 23, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Arts. 32, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) – Right to protest – Right to
assemble peaceably and without arms – Writ petitions seeking
quashing of the repeated imposition of police order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C.
by which Central Delhi area declared as prohibited area for holding
public meetings, dharna, peaceful protests; quashing of the order
of NGT prohibiting/banning demonstrations at Jantar Mantar road;
and issuance of writ of mandamus laying down the guidelines for
holding public meetings, dharnas – Held: Right of people to hold
peaceful protests and demonstrations etc. is a fundamental right
guaranteed u/Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) – Peaceful protests and
demonstrations, can be allowed in a guarded and regulated manner,
to enable the protestors to exercise their right, ensuring that no
inconvenience of any kind is caused to the residents – There could
be balancing of the rights of both the protestors and the residents –
For quite some time Jantar Mantar has been chosen as a place for
holding demonstrations and was earmarked by the authorities as
well – However, pathetic conditions were caused as a result of the
processions, demonstrations and agitations etc. since the authorities
did not take necessary measures to regulate the same – Ramlila
Maidan earmarked for such demonstrations etc, may not be
sufficient to cater to this requirement – Since, Jantar Mantar was
the area chosen by the authorities and has been in use for quite
sometime, balancing can be done by permitting a limited part of
this area for holding peaceful public meetings, processions etc. such
that no disturbance or inconvenience of any nature is caused to the
residents – Commissioner of Police, New Delhi in consultation with
other concerned agencies, to frame proper guidelines for regulating
such protests, demonstrations iin Jantar Mantar and Boat Club area.
[2018] 11  S.C.R. 586
                                                 586
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) – Right to protest – Held: Holding
peaceful demonstrations by the citizenry to air its grievances is a
fundamental right, enshrined u/Art.19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), subject
to reasonable restrictions, which can be imposed in the interests of
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order – Legitimate dissent
is a distinguishable feature of any democracy – It is not whether
the issue raised by protestors is right or wrong or is justified or
unjustified – Fundamental aspect is the right which is conferred
upon the affected people in a democracy to voice their grievances
– This right is crucial in a vibrant democracy like India but more so
in the Indian context to aid in the assertion of the rights of the
marginalised and poorly represented minorities.
Arts. 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 – Fundamental rights – Right
of protestors u/Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) vis-a-vis the rights of the
residents u/Art. 21 – Balancing of the two rights – Held: Situations
arise where there is conflict between two fundamental rights – In
respect of some person one fundamental right enjoyed by him may
come in conflict with the other fundamental right guaranteed to
him – Principle of primacy cannot be given to one right whereby
the right of the other gets totally extinguished – Total extinction is
not balancing – Balancing would mean curtailing one right of one
class to some extent so that the right of the other class is also protected
– While balancing the two conflicting rights, the Court is to examine
the larger public interest, which would ultimately prevail.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 144 – Repeated
imposition of police order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. by which Central Delhi
area declared as prohibited area for holding public meeting, dharna
or peaceful protest – Held: These orders do not, on their face, appear
to be illegal as they prohibit public meetings, assembly of five or
more persons, processions, demonstrations, dharnas, etc. ‘without
written permission’ – Further , such orders are passed on the basis
of intelligence reports which indicate that ‘unrestricted holding of
public meetings’, processions, demonstrations, etc. in the area are
likely to cause obstruction to traffic, danger to human safety and
disturbance of public tranquility – Reading of these orders would
indicate that t

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