RUPINDER SINGH SODHL AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 18-11-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

84! 
RUPINDER SINGH ~ODHI AND ANOTHER 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
November 18, 1982 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.N. SI!N, J.i 
· Freedom of movement on Hicllways-Reasonable teltrainr1 durint mas1 
111ttatfons-Extent of. 
In the wake of a threatened Morcha by Aka lis which was to coincide 
with the inauguration of the Asian Games at Delhi, sorne States apprehended 
that the Morcha might interfere with the holding of the games and toolr measures 
to intercept the .movement of Akalis to Delhi. On the question raised by the 
petiiionors that placing of obstructions on highways so as to impede free flow ot 
traffic was per se unlawful, 
: HELD : No one is entitled to barricade a highway so as to prevent 
mtmbers of the public from using It while they arc on their lawful ':Jusiness in 
1be pursuit of normal avocations of life. But tho police, whose duty it is to 
enforce law and order in the wnkc of threatened mass agitations which are 
rmonably hkely to lead to breach of public peace, are entitled in the disc:hargc 
ol tbat duty to impose reasonable restraints on the physical movement of 
Jll(mbe11 of the public to protect public properly and to avoid needless in-
convenience to other citizens in their lawful pursuits. But all such restraints 
oa personal libeny, if at all, bave to be commensurate with tbc object which 
furo4hea their justification, They must be minimal and 
ca~not exceed 
conuraints of. the particular siluatioo, either in nature or in duratton. Above 
all, they cannot he used as engines or oppression, persecution, harassment or 
the like. The sanctity of person and of privacy bas to be J_Daintained at all costs 
and that cannot ever be violuted under the guise or maJOteouoce of law and 
order. The rule or law ~cquires that no person shall be subj~ted to ~arsb, 
Unci 'II 
h 
b' t've is the secunog of 
VI zed or discriminatory treatment even when t co jeC 1 
tbe Paramount e~igcncies of law and order. [842:P-H; 843-A·G) 
0 
Wrl.t Pelt'tt'on N·'s. 8816 and 8817 
itlGlNAL JURISDICTION ; 
v 
or 1982. 
. . 
(Under. Article 32 of the Constitution of lndia) 
· 
, 
for the Petitioner. 
Hardev Singh and Bishambhar La/ Kr1allna 
Mrs. $. Dikslrlt 
f · K.G. Bhagat Addl So!·Geo.1 R.Nt Poddar and 
orR 
• 
· 
espondents 3 and 4. 
: . 
-- -........: -·~- ,..·.· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
8 
.
~ 
f·.. I 
. i; . ' ' 
., 
·i ., 
i 
I 
... 
i .; 
i 
I 
. 
~ · 
I 
t ' . 
. t' 
' l 
. i 
i 
I 
I 
1 
! 
! 
t 
• I I 
~ 
B 
a 
D 
B 
• 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11 .. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
:1 
[198) ) l s.c.t_ . I 
· 1 
. CoANDRACHUD, c.J • . By these writ petitions, the . petitioners 
f whom are practising lawyers and some Members of tb' 
some o 
. 
. d' 
. 
. 
e 
Parliament, ask for an approprtate ·wnt . trectmg the State of 
Haryana and the. State of Uttar Pradesh to remove all ob!ltructions 
on the highways and to allo~ unhin~ered and .uninterc~pte.d the use 
. of highways1 railways and atrways w1thout mak~n~ any dtscrtmination 
against tbe.Akali Sikhs on th~ grou~d of rehg10n. Stated ·briefly, 
the case of the petitioners IS that ID the recent past, a movement . . 
was set afoot . in the State of Punjab consequent upon certain 
de~ands made by the members of the Akali' Party and as a result 
of that movement, large scale arrests of Sikhs were effected, bordering . 
··an harassment and persecution. It would appear that a declaration 
'·was made by certain Akali leaders that a Morcba would be taken 
'to Delhi on November 19, 1982 which coincides with the inaguration 
of the Asiad games. Apprehending that the Morcha will interfere 
with the holding of the games, the border . States, particulariy . 
Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, appear to have taken certain measures 
to intercept the movement of Akalis across the border on to Delhi 
with a ·view to ensuring that the proposed Morcha is not staged in 
·the manner feared and the Asiad not disrupted. . 
Mi. Hardev Singh who appears on behalf of the petitioners 
argues that highways are dedicated to the public and are meant for 
their · use for passin~ and repassing. Therefore, he argues, no 
obstruction can be placed thereon which will impede the free fiow 
of traffic, any such obstruction being per se unlawful. Having given 
our anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr. HardeY 
·Singh, we agree that no one is entitled to barricade a highway so 
as to prevent members of the public from using it while they arc 
on their lawful business in the pursuit of nor

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