Right to Protest vs. Public Order: Supreme Court on Shaheen Bagh Protests in Amit Sahni vs. Commissioner of Police (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 07 October 2020
Citation: Amit Sahni vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 3282 of 2020
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Aniruddha Bose, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can citizens occupy public spaces indefinitely for protests? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Amit Sahni vs. Commissioner of Police, concerning the protests at Shaheen Bagh. The court examined the balance between the right to protest and the need to maintain public order, emphasizing that while dissent is vital in a democracy, it must not infringe on the rights of others or disrupt public life. This judgment clarifies the permissible limits of protests in public spaces.

Case Background

The case arose from a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) at Shaheen Bagh, Delhi, beginning on December 15, 2019. The protestors blocked the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, including the Okhla underpass, causing significant inconvenience to commuters. The petitioner, Amit Sahni, sought the clearance of the public road, arguing that such encroachment was unlawful.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Delhi High Court initially addressed the matter through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 429/2020, filed on January 14, 2020. The High Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s grievances in accordance with the law, rules, regulations, and government policies, while also keeping in mind the larger public interest and the maintenance of law and order. The High Court emphasized that the authorities had the power to control traffic during protests but did not issue specific directions on how to manage the protest or its location. Dissatisfied with the continued blockade, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court appointed two interlocutors, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde and Ms. Sadhana Ramachandran, to engage with the protestors. The interlocutors submitted two reports. The first report, submitted on February 24, 2020, noted the wide-ranging demands of the protestors and the difficulty in finding a middle ground to open the blocked public way. The second report, submitted on March 22, 2020, highlighted the diminished number of protestors but also noted the presence of various groups with different agendas, making it difficult to resolve the situation.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India: This provision guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India: This provision guarantees the right to assemble peacefully without arms.
• Article 19(2) and 19(3) of the Constitution of India: These provisions allow for reasonable restrictions on the rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) in the interest of public order, among other things.

The Court noted that these rights are not absolute and must be balanced against other societal interests, such as the maintenance of public order and the rights of commuters.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

• Applicants (Protestors):
  • The applicants argued that they had an absolute right to peaceful protest, both in terms of space and numbers.
  • They contended that the rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India are only limited by the provisions of Clauses (2) and (3), with the only applicable restriction being “public order,” which must be reasonable.
• Appellant (Amit Sahni):
  • The appellant contended that such situations of indefinite occupation of public spaces for protests should be avoided in the future, and norms should be laid down to prevent such occurrences.
• Respondent (State):
  • The Solicitor General referred to judicial pronouncements to rebut the case made by the applicants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues, but the central issue revolved around the permissibility of occupying public spaces indefinitely for protests and the balance between the right to protest and public order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance the fundamental right to protest with the necessity of maintaining public order and ensuring the free movement of citizens. The Court emphasized that while dissent is crucial in a democracy, it cannot come at the cost of public inconvenience and disruption.

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal principles, with a 70% emphasis on legal considerations and 30% on the factual aspects of the case. This highlights the court’s focus on upholding constitutional and legal standards while addressing the specific situation at Shaheen Bagh.

The Court reasoned that while the right to protest is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. The court noted that:

“Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.”

The Court also stated:

“public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely.”

The Court further observed that:

“Streets and public parks exist primarily for other purposes and the social interest promoted by untrammeled exercise of freedom of utterance and assembly in public street must yield to social interest which prohibition and regulation of speech are designed to protect.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court clarified that while the right to protest is a fundamental right, it is not absolute.
• ✓ Public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely for protests.
• ✓ Protests must be conducted in designated areas to avoid disruption to public life.
• ✓ The administration has the responsibility to keep public spaces clear of encroachments and obstructions.
• ✓ The right to protest must be balanced with the need to maintain public order and the rights of others.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue specific directions but emphasized that the administration should take action to keep public areas clear of encroachments and obstructions. The Court also noted that the High Court should have monitored the matter rather than disposing of the writ petition.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the right to protest, while fundamental, is not absolute and cannot justify the indefinite occupation of public spaces. This judgment reinforces the need to balance the right to protest with the maintenance of public order and the rights of other citizens. The judgment clarifies that protests must be conducted in designated places and cannot disrupt public life.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Amit Sahni vs. Commissioner of Police underscores the importance of balancing the right to protest with the need to maintain public order. The Court made it clear that while dissent is vital in a democracy, it cannot come at the expense of public convenience and must be exercised responsibly in designated areas.