AMIT SAHNI V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

By – Gunjan Banarsi

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  NAME OF THE CASE    Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police  
  CITATION    civil appeal no. 3282 of 2020
  DATE OF THE CASE    7 October 2020
  APPELLANT    Amit Sahni
  RESPONDENT    Commissioner of Police and ors.
  BENCH/JUDGE    Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose Hon’ble Justice Krishna Murari  
  LEGAL PROVISIONS    The Constitution of India, 1949 (Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c)) The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019  

INTRODUCTION

In a democracy, citizens manifest the inherent part of the nation and they should be protected by legislation as a country can operate congruously only when the citizens of the country are rapturous and are not troubled by the constant interference of its government. The rules and regulations, the ordinance, the directives, and all the statue are being issued by the government for the welfare of its citizens and towards this end, the Constitution of India accord its citizens some rights which are labelled as Fundamental Rights which safeguards the interest of the citizen. Thus, if citizens are not satisfied with the government’s functioning and any of the government’s policies, they have the right to debate, disparage and denounce it through peaceful protest.

The right to peaceful protest is like a cap on a democratic water bottle, just like the cap holds the water in the bottle in the same way it upholds the very spirit of democracy. The right to protest is secured under Article 19(1)(a) which states that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression[1], Article 19(1)(b) which gives the right to assemble peacefully and without arms[2], Article 19(1)(c) which states the right to form associations or unions[3]. The Chipko Movement is one of the demonstrations of peaceful protest. Countries whose foremost concern is the formation of a democratic society will always uphold the essence of the right to protest for their rights.

However, all fundamental rights are not absolute and one should always utilize their right accordingly so that the rights of others are not curtailed. In the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India[4], National Green Tribunal held that the “right to hold demonstration or protest does not include the right to hold a demonstration at one particular place. Protest at Jantar Mantar road in New Delhi, on the ground of nuisance and causing air and noise pollution to the residents of the area. The supreme court directed to devise a proper mechanism for limited use of the area for such purpose because guarded and regulated peaceful protests would not violate the rights of protestors.” The same restrictions are laid down in the recent case of Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police where the protesters assembled at Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens. It was held that the rights to freedom of expression and protest under Article 19 of the Constitution are subject to reasonable restrictions about the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order and the regulation by the concerned police authorities.[5]

BACKGROUND

The Indian Constitution under Article 19 laid down the right of all the citizens to protest against the malfunctioning of the Government. However, the rights and restrictions are two sides of a coin as rights are not absolute. These restrictions are evident in many cases namely, Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr.[6], Beenu Rawat v. Union of India[7], Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India & Anr.[8].

The case of Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police also highlights the fact that ‘democracy and dissent should go hand in hand’. The genesis of the case begins in December 2019 with the Shaheen Bagh protest. The Shaheen Bagh protest is an epic protest which was organized by the women, children and seniors who were mainly Muslims against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 passed by the Indian Parliament. Their primary point of contention was the fact that through the CAA, persecuted minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh would be given citizenship in India but Muslim persecuted minorities would not.[9] The discrimination based on religion was against the secular policy of India and this incited people to protest against this bill. However, a writ petition was registered against the protestors to the Delhi High Court because of the encroachment and blockage caused by the protest. The public ways and roads were obstructed with tents, a library and the huge crowd which was assembled against the amendment bill. The Delhi Court directed the respondent authorities to look into the grievances advanced by the petitioner but the authorities failed to take the essential steps to vacant the area.

Therefore, the petitioner reached the door of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court-appointed two interlocutors, namely, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde and Ms. Sadhana Ramachandran to mediate with the protesters. However, their efforts were futile. Nevertheless, the Court continued with its proceedings.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill was passed by the Indian Parliament in December 2019 which led to the wave of protests in a different part of India. One such protest was organized in the district of Shaheen Bagh in Delhi. The roads were obstructed due to the protest with the huge crowd and tents, a library, a large replica of the India Gate and the Map of India.

Therefore, on January 14, 2020, a writ petition was filed to the Delhi High Court by a lawyer-activist, Amit Sahni. He argued that because of the Shaheen Bagh protest various essential public roads were blocked including the Okhla underpass from December 15, 2019. He beseeched the Court to direct the appropriate authorities to clear the road for the smooth passage of traffic. The Delhi High Court ordered the authorities to ensure that their decisions should be in the larger public interest and should not be detrimental to law and order.[10]

As the situation remained the same and the petitioner was not satisfied with the decision of the Delhi Court, he filed an appeal to the Supreme Court through the Special Leave Petition (SLP) on January 20, 2020. To mediate the issue the Supreme Court-appointed two interlocutors, namely, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde and Ms. Sadhana Ramachandran but their labour borne no fruits. The Court nevertheless decided to go ahead with the appeal because of the case’s wider ramifications and for the sake of clarity.[11]     

ISSUED RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

  1. Whether there is an absolute right of peaceful protest under article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India?[12]
  • What are how protests can be carried out without blocking the public roads?
  • Whether the protestors can occupy public places indefinitely?

CONTENTIONS

Arguments from the Petitioner’s Side:

  1. The petitioner argued that the right to protest is not an absolute right and reasonable restrictions should be imposed on the exercise of this right.
  2. The petitioner also stated that the Shaheen Bagh protest obstructed the public roadways through the huge crowd assembled along with tents, a library, a large replica of the India Gate and the Map of India.
  3. The petitioner also argued that the blockage of the main roads not only caused inconvenience to the commuters but also obstructed the smooth movement of traffic.
  4. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Delhi High Court and in turn, the Delhi Court directed the appropriate officials to take necessary steps. However, the petitioner stated that the situation remained the same and the authorities failed to take the necessary steps. Despite a lapse of a considerable peri, there was neither any negotiations nor any action by the administration.[13] Therefore, the petitioner knocked on the door of the Supreme Court.

Arguments from the Respondent’s Side:

  1. The respondent authority argued that Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c) of the Indian Constitution guarantees all citizens their right to freedom of speech and expression, right to assemble peacefully and without arms, and the right to form associations and unions respectively and therefore, it would be inappropriate to remove the protestors from the site.
  2. The authorities also asserted that the Court ordered them to act according to the larger public interests and should not be contrary to the law and order.
  3. It was also stated that they had the power to vacant the site if the situation changes every 10 minutes but the Shaheen Bagh protest was peaceful and there were no agitations or violence.
  1. The Constitution of India, 1949
  2. Article 19(1)(a): Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression.[14]
  3. Article 19(1)(b): It guarantees to all citizens the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.[15]
  4. Article 19(1)(c): It guarantees to all its citizens the right to form associations or unions.[16]
  • The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill seeks to provide Indian nationality to six communities — Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists fleeing persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. The bill amends the Citizenship Act, of 1955 to make illegal migrants in the select categories eligible for citizenship.[17]

JUDGEMENT

The Shaheen Bagh protest was launched against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens. The protest was widespread and lead to the obstruction of the essential roads including the Okhla underpass for thirty days. An appeal was registered to the Delhi High Court and the Delhi Court directed the appropriate authorities to take the necessary steps. However, the petitioner was not satisfied with this decision and filed another appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court before giving the judgement appointed two interlocutors to mediate with the protesters which were not successful. The Supreme Court of India held that protestations and demonstrations enunciating dissent must not be organized at the public roads as it causes grave inconvenience to the general public.

Furthermore, the Court refused to accept the argument that ‘an obscure number of people can organize protest wherever they want. The Court also stated that the public roadways cannot be occupied indefinitely.[18] Although Article 19 guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and protest against the government policies but this right is associated with certain duties and obligations as evident in the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India[19], the Justices ruled that “each fundamental right, be it of an individual or a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right.” In this case, the court tried to establish the balance between the right of the protestors to that of the right of the commuters so that every citizen of the country can exercise their right freely.

In yet another case of Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police[20], the Justices pointed out that “Streets and public parks exist primarily for other purposes and the social interest promoted by the untrammelled exercise of freedom of utterance and assembly in public streets must yield to the social interest which prohibition and regulation of speech are designed to protect. But there is a constitutional difference between reasonable regulation and arbitrary exclusion.”

The Court also promulgated the pros and cons of technology and the internet which not only emancipate the technological fueled movements but on the other hand spread rumours about the same which turns the peaceful protest into a widespread conflict affecting the unity and integrity of the nation and this was evident in the Shaheen Bagh protest.  

The Court summarized its judgement by divulging that if democracy and dissent were to go hand in hand, the Government needs to nurture and boost the rights of its citizens. Similarly, the citizen needs to honour the restrictions imposed on their rights as rights are not absolute and it come with certain duties and responsibilities. Therefore, the Court held that the complete blockade of public ways was not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments and obstructions.[21]

CONCLUSION

In the case of Amish Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, the lawyer-activist Amish Sahni filed a petition against the protesters who were gathered against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens which was passed by the Indian Parliament as the protest obstructed the public roadways and cause inconvenience to the general public. The Court stated that the public ways and roads must not be occupied indefinitely and the protest should be organized in the designated area.

To my understanding, the judgement of the case is still vague as the Court has not evaluated many terms as well as has not given sufficient directions to the appropriate authorities for future protests. However, the decision of the Court is apt as in this case the right to protest overpowered the other individual rights.  

[1] Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1949.

[2] Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, 1949.

[3] Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, 1949.

[4] Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (AIR 2018 SC 3476)

[5] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/amit-sahni-v-commissioner-of-police/ [last visited on February 5, 2022]

[6] Himat Lal K. Shah vs Commissioner of Police, [(1973) 1 SCC 227].

[7] Beenu Rawat v. Union of India, writ petition (civil) no.446 of 2013.

[8] Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (AIR 2018 SC 3476)

[9] https://blog.ipleaders.in/shaheen-bagh-judgment-right-protest-india/ [last visited on February 5, 2022]

[10] https://www.scobserver.in/journal/court-lays-down-restrictions-on-the-right-to-protest/ [last visited on February 5, 2022]

[11] Supra note 5

[12] Supra note 5.

[13] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145656971/ [last visited on February 7, 2022]

[14] Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,1949.

[15] Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, 1949.

[16] Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, 1949.

[17] The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

[18] Supra note 5

[19] Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (AIR 2018 SC 3476)

[20] Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, [(1973) 1 SCC 227]

[21] Supra note 5.