A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. addresses the constitutional contours of the right to protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India in the context of prolonged public road blockades during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The dispute arose from the indefinite occupation of the Kalindi Kunj–Shaheen Bagh stretch in Delhi, which resulted in severe disruption of public movement and civic life. The Supreme Court was called upon to balance the fundamental right to peaceful dissent with competing public rights, particularly the right of commuters to free movement.

The Court recognised dissent as a democratic necessity but firmly rejected the notion of an absolute or unregulated right to protest, especially when such protest takes the form of encroachment upon public ways. It clarified that public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely and that protests must be conducted only at designated places under regulatory oversight. The judgment emphasised that fundamental rights operate within a framework of reasonable restrictions and reciprocal duties. The Court also criticised administrative inertia and underscored the responsibility of both executive authorities and constitutional courts to prevent the normalisation of unlawful occupations under the guise of protest.

The ruling is significant for its doctrinal reaffirmation of balancing of rights, its reliance on earlier jurisprudence governing public assemblies, and its forward-looking observations on digital mobilisation and leaderless protests.

Keywords:
Right to Protest; Article 19; Public Order; Reasonable Restrictions; Public Roads; Shaheen Bagh Protest

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose against the backdrop of widespread protests across India following the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. In Delhi, one such protest resulted in the continuous blockage of the Kalindi Kunj–Shaheen Bagh road, including the Okhla underpass, from 15 December 2019. This blockade disrupted daily life and caused substantial hardship to commuters. The appellant approached the Delhi High Court through a Public Interest Litigation, contending that public roads could not be lawfully occupied for indefinite protests.

The High Court, while recognising the authority of the police to regulate protests and traffic, refrained from issuing specific directions and disposed of the petition. The persistence of the blockade led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. During the pendency of proceedings, multiple intervention applications were filed, reflecting polarised societal views on the nature and scope of protest rights.

The Supreme Court attempted a conciliatory approach by appointing interlocutors to mediate with protestors. Despite sincere efforts, mediation failed due to divergent demands, lack of cohesive leadership, and resistance to relocation. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic eventually resulted in the clearing of the protest site, rendering the immediate relief infructuous.

Nevertheless, the Court considered it necessary to lay down authoritative principles on the limits of protest rights given the broader constitutional ramifications. The judgment thus serves not merely as dispute resolution but as constitutional guidance on democratic dissent, public order, and civic responsibility.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Amit Sahni, challenged the continuous blockage of a major public road in South-East Delhi due to protests opposing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The protest site at Shaheen Bagh effectively cut off a crucial arterial road connecting Delhi with Noida, leading to daily inconvenience for thousands of commuters. The blockade involved tents, stages, symbolic installations, and semi-permanent structures occupying significant portions of the carriageway.

The protest initially began as a peaceful sit-in led predominantly by women. Over time, it expanded in scale and infrastructure. Reports submitted by Court-appointed interlocutors revealed the presence of 75–100 women inside the main tent and over 200 persons forming a supporting periphery. Structures such as a library, a large India Gate replica, and a metallic map of India were erected, making removal difficult without force.

The appellant argued that such occupation amounted to unlawful encroachment on public property. The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing authorities to act according to law without issuing enforceable mandates. Dissatisfied with administrative inaction, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

During proceedings, the Court acknowledged the legitimacy of protest but questioned its location and duration. The emergence of the pandemic altered ground realities, leading to police-assisted clearance of the site. Despite the factual resolution, the Court proceeded to adjudicate the constitutional questions involved.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) confer an absolute right to protest without spatial or temporal ограничения?
ii. Whether public roads can be occupied indefinitely for the purpose of protest?
iii. Whether administrative authorities failed in their duty to regulate protests in the interest of public order?
iv. Whether courts can remain passive when fundamental rights of different classes come into conflict?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Appellant submitted that the right to protest cannot extend to the permanent occupation of public roads. It was contended that public ways are held in trust for general use and cannot be appropriated by any group, irrespective of the cause. The appellant emphasised that the High Court’s non-intervention resulted in a vacuum, effectively allowing an illegal blockade to continue unchecked. Reliance was placed on the principle that reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3) permit regulation of assemblies to prevent public inconvenience.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Respondents and Intervenors argued that the protests were peaceful and constitutionally protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). It was asserted that dissent against legislation is a democratic right and that restrictions must satisfy the test of reasonableness. The intervenors contended that the absence of violence justified continued occupation and that the State had alternative mechanisms to manage traffic without dismantling the protest.

H) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court held that while the right to protest is a fundamental democratic value, it is not absolute. The Court reaffirmed that Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. It drew extensively from Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India to underscore that public assemblies must be regulated with respect to time, place, and manner.

The Court distinguished between designated protest sites and public thoroughfares, holding that the latter cannot be blocked indefinitely. It rejected the argument that any number of persons could assemble at will and occupy public spaces. The judgment criticised administrative indecision and observed that the High Court ought to have exercised continuing oversight rather than disposing of the matter summarily.

The Court acknowledged the mediation attempt as a good-faith effort but noted its failure due to structural and leadership issues within the protest. It concluded that such occupations are constitutionally impermissible and directed that authorities must act proactively to prevent recurrence.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment lies in the principle that the right to peaceful protest does not include the right to occupy public ways indefinitely. Fundamental rights must be harmonised with competing rights, particularly the right of the public to free movement. Regulation of protests with respect to location and duration constitutes a reasonable restriction under Articles 19(2) and 19(3).

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court’s observations on digital mobilisation, leaderless movements, and the polarising effect of social media constitute obiter dicta. The remarks on the evolving nature of protests and the need for dialogue reflect cautionary guidance rather than binding law.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Protests must be conducted only at designated places.
ii. Public roads cannot be blocked for indefinite periods.
iii. Authorities must proactively regulate assemblies to maintain public order.
iv. Courts should monitor prolonged disputes involving public inconvenience.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces constitutional discipline without diluting democratic dissent. It restores balance by reaffirming that rights function within a framework of duties. The ruling discourages the normalisation of unlawful occupations while preserving the legitimacy of peaceful protest. It provides clear guidance for future governance and protest regulation, ensuring that democracy remains participatory yet orderly.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad [1973] 2 SCR 266
ii. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India [2018] 11 SCR 586
iii. In re Ramlila Maidan Incident [2012] 4 SCR 971

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973