The review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution was filed on November 5 by advocate Kabir Dixit and has raised five grounds to challenge the decision rendered by a three-judge bench headed by justice SK Kaul.
A group of 12 protestors who took part in the Shaheen Bagh protests have approached the Supreme Court against the October 7 decision of the apex court terming any protest held outside designated places to be illegal and giving a free hand to the police for clearing such protests.
The review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution was filed on November 5 by advocate Kabir Dixit and has raised five grounds to challenge the decision rendered by a three-judge bench headed by justice SK Kaul.
The judgment under challenge had held, “We have to make it 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.” By this standard, the Shaheen Bagh protests were illegal as the protest at Shaheen Bagh had blocked one of the key thoroughfares to Noida.
The main ground for review was based on the vast powers the judgment conferred on police, leaving scope for its abuse. The petition said, “Prima facie the order under review appears to be giving way to an unrestricted sanction to the police to take action by misusing these observations…. Such observations may prove to be a license in the hands of the police to commit atrocities on legitimate voice of protest, especially protestors coming from vulnerable sections of the social strata.”
The review petitioners further argued that the judgment of the top court would lead to a situation where the administration would never engage in dialogue with people, protesting against a government action or policy, but would instead take action against them including their prosecution.
Stating that right to dissent and protest were essential facets of Article 19 of the Constitution, the petition stated, “The order takes away the constitutional protection guaranteed to peaceful protestors….to put any curbs on this freedom to show dissent (towards government policies, legislations and other acts and omissions) leaves the citizens with no resort whatsoever to voice their concerns.”
The observation of the court that protests could be held at ‘designated places alone’ went against the five-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Himat Lal Shah case decided in September 1972 which upheld the right of a citizen to hold public meetings on public streets. The petitioners complained that before altering this principle, the apex bench did not hear the protestors.
The apex court ruling came in the context of the protests held against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act or CAA conducted at South Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh area that began on December 15, 2019 and got dismantled following the lockdown imposed by the Central government on March 24 in view of the fight against coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic. The protests threw traffic out of gear prompting one Amit Sahni, a resident of Delhi to file a public interest litigation (PIL) before the apex court. He wanted the blockade to be lifted and traffic to resume along this stretch. This resulted in the October 7 order.
Source: Hindustan Times
