Author- Ayush Dhankar, Lloyd Law College

CASE DETAILS

i)            Judgement Cause Title / Case Name	Rituparna Sarkar Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 3 May, 2018
ii)            Case Number	WP 568 OF 2015
iii)            Judgement Date	May 3, 2018
iv)            Court	Calcutta High Court
v)            Quorum / Constitution of Bench	Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Arijit Banerjee
vi)            Author / Name of Judges	Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Arijit Banerjee
vii)            Citation	AIR 2018 CALCUTTA 197
viii)            Legal Provisions Involved	Article 14, Article 21, Article 32, Article 19

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

• Filing of Complaint/Petition:
  1. The case would have begun with Rituparna Sarkar Dutta filing a complaint or petition against the State of Bengal in a competent court. This could be a Criminal Complaint or a Writ Petition (if fundamental rights were being challenged), depending on the nature of the grievance. For example, if the issue involves illegal detention, it might involve a Habeas Corpus petition under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

• Investigation by Law Enforcement: If the case involves criminal allegations, law enforcement agencies (such as the police) would investigate the complaint. The investigative authorities would collect evidence, question witnesses, and proceed according to the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

• First Court Hearing: Following the filing, the case would likely be taken up for a preliminary hearing in a Lower Court (Magistrate’s Court or Sessions Court, depending on the case). The judge would decide whether the case should proceed to trial or if any interim relief should be granted (such as bail or injunctions).

 Factual Background of the Case

• Parties Involved:
  1. Petitioner: Rituparna Sarkar Dutta, an individual (likely a citizen of Bengal).
  2. Respondent: The State of Bengal (West Bengal) represents the government, law enforcement agencies, or other state bodies involved in the matter.

• Nature of Dispute: The dispute likely arises from an allegation against the state authorities, either regarding unlawful actions or violations of rights. For example, the petitioner might have claimed that their rights were violated by state authorities, such as police misconduct, illegal detention, failure to protect rights, or discrimination by state officials.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights:

Whether the actions of the State of Bengal violated the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. This could involve issues such as unlawful detention, denial of fair trial, or arbitrary state actions.

2. Due Process of Law:

Whether the state’s actions adhere to the principles of due process, including the right to a fair hearing, right to legal representation, and protection from arbitrary actions. This could raise questions about the fairness of police investigations or legal proceedings under Article 21.

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that rallies/meetings/processions are organized by political parties by completely blocking several important roads/streets thereby restricting the movement of the public at large. Blockage of arterial roads disrupts essential services like fire brigade, ambulance, etc. He submitted that the political parties can paralyse life in this manner because of the permission granted by the State authorities and/or inaction on their part to ensure that the normal life of the public, in general, is not impeded by the political meetings/rallies/processions.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that Learned Counsel for the State respondents submitted that all necessary precautions are taken by the administration to ensure that the normal lives of the people are not disrupted in any manner by the political meetings/rallies/processions. Learned Counsel placed before us two affidavits affirmed on behalf of the State. The first affidavit was affirmed by one Jayanta Kumar Halder describing himself as the Dy. Secretary. The said affidavit which was affirmed on 11 January 2017 is not very relevant since the same deals with strikes/bandhs called by political parties. The other affidavit was confirmed on 1 August 2017 by one Anujit Biswas describing himself as the Dy. Superintendent of Police, West Bengal, gives some indication of the measures taken by the administration to ensure normalcy of public life on the days of political meetings/rallies/processions. In the said affidavit it is, inter alia, stated as follows:-

On the days of political rallies/processions/meetings, the main object of the police administration is proper traffic management and crowd control to ensure that inconvenience to the public is minimized and to ensure the maintenance of peace and law and order.

Upon receiving advance information of political processions etc., elaborate police arrangement is made after taking into confidence all stakeholders and after due consideration of inputs from the intelligence branch, giving priority to public safety and smooth flow of traffic.

To combat any untoward situation a good number of police personnel (including lady personnel) are deployed on the routes of rallies/processions/meetings or at and around the venue of the meeting under the supervision of senior officers of the Department.

 To ensure minimum disruption to traffic the following steps are taken:-

An elaborate plan is prepared regarding the parking of vehicles carrying the supporters of the concerned political party as far as possible from the busy areas and the main roads so that they do not clog the main thoroughfares and disrupt the movement of traffic.

It is a fact that while the rally/procession is in progress some parts of the approaching roads are blocked by the members of the particular political party.

Learned Counsel for the State respondents finally submitted that since most towns/cities including Calcutta in the State of West Bengal are densely populated and extremely congested, large political congregations/rallies/meetings/processions pose a herculean challenge to the police authorities which they try to meet to the best of their ability by planning, deployment of maximum available personnel, direct supervision of senior officers and by involving and appealing to all the stakeholders to help the authorities to maintain peace and cause minimum disruption to public life.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 (Communist Party of India (Marxist)) submitted that holding peaceful demonstrations to ventilate their grievances and ensure that the voice of the people is heard by the relevant quarters, is the fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Exercising such constitutional right the said respondent holds processions and/or demonstrations at different places within the territory of India. He submitted that the said respondent is a responsible political party and organizes rallies/meetings/processions strictly within the four corners of the law of the land. The right of the people to hold a demonstration cannot be curtailed so long as the same is not violent or destructive. The right to protest peacefully is recognized as a fundamental right of the Constitution of India.

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

In WP No. 568 of 2015, the main prayer is for the issuance of a writ-like mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to issue permission allowing any political party or any authority to block the roads or streets completely for any assembly meeting rally or procession. In WP No. 1130 of 2015, the main prayer is for the issuance of a writ like a mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to allow the political parties/associations to hold political rallies during working days in the vicinity of the city of Calcutta since the same paralyses the free movement of the public at large.

The police authorities try to ensure that by proper communication and interaction with the political party, keeping in mind local requirements like schools, hospitals, commuters, any change in normal traffic flow, any traffic restriction or diversion of road are publicised well in advance through television etc.

To deal with the problem of congestion, a comprehensive traffic plan involves giving special attention to important road junctions, nearby schools, hospitals fire service stations etc. Under such a plan, traffic is diverted to alternative routes so far as is practicable to avoid road blockades.

Senior officials of the district/traffic branch of the police with their men perform duty on the roads to facilitate the movement of the commuters and to ensure that there is no clash between the members participating in the meeting/rallies/processions and the general public.

To ensure a smooth flow of traffic wherever available, alternative roads parallel to the main road are used. If such alternatives are not available, a part of the road is barricaded to ensure the smooth movement of emergency vehicles and pedestrians.

We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the respective parties.

However, we make one thing abundantly clear. No major or arterial road/street must be completely blocked and made inaccessible whether to pedestrians or motor traffic because of holding a meeting/rally/procession. A reasonable part of every road/street must be kept free of blockage and open to pedestrians and motor traffic. This is imperative keeping in mind the importance of essential and emergency services like ambulances, fire brigades etc. These are lifesaving services and cannot be allowed to be impeded in any manner. All necessary steps must be taken by the administration to ease the flow of traffic and for that purpose, reasonable diversions of traffic may be made and the public at large should be kept informed of the same through the different types of media including television and radio. Normal life cannot be permitted to be brought to a standstill because of holding a political meeting/rally/procession or for that matter any kind of assembly.

We find from the records that in terms of an earlier order dated 3 September 2015 passed by another Division Bench in WP 568 of 2015, two reports have been filed on behalf of the administration. One report has been filed by the Special Addl. Commissioner & Joint Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Lal Bazar, Calcutta. This report pertains to the loss/damage caused to public and private property due to bandh/procession/law violation etc. The other report which is dated 15 February 2016 has been filed by the Director General & Inspection General of Police, West Bengal. This report is captioned ” Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, Arijit Banerjee report includes particulars of criminal cases initiated against the persons booked for causing damage to public/private property and other offences concerning violation of law and order. It may be noted that by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, Part IV-A was inserted in our Constitution. Part IV-A is captioned ‘Fundamental Duties’. Art. 51A which is the only article in Part IV-A provides inter alia, that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to safeguard public property and to abjure violence. The fundamental right to hold peaceful assembly/rally/procession cannot be exercised in a manner which would amount to a breach of the said fundamental duty to protect public property and renounce violence. Hence, we direct the State administration to ensure that the criminal cases initiated against the offenders are carried to their logical conclusion. We also trust and hope that the State authorities shall ensure that if in the future members participating in the rallies/processions/meetings indulge in violent activities or destruction of property, be it public or private, action will be taken against them by law.

GUIDELINES 

It was submitted that the right to free movement and the right to livelihood by doing business and attending work is a constitutional right of the citizens and the State authorities must protect such right. The State authorities are duty-bound to ensure the free movement of the public in and around the city of Calcutta during such meetings/rallies/processions.

Article 21 has been interpreted by the Courts to guarantee the fundamental right to livelihood. No citizen or group of citizens can exercise one fundamental right to adversely affect or impinge upon some other fundamental right of another citizen. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that the right to hold peaceful assembly/rally/procession cannot be exercised in a manner which would curtail other persons’ rights to free movement and right to livelihood.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

A good number of CCTVs are installed at different places apart from the venue of the meeting and along the route of the rally/procession to monitor the situation closely. If the gravity of the situation demands, a special control room is set up so that if anything untoward happens, the situation may be brought under control promptly by quick intervention. If there is any anticipation/apprehension of a breach of peace or law and order problem, the presence of an Executive Magistrate is requested to maintain peace and tranquillity.

We have noted the steps that the administration claims are taken on the days of political meetings/rallies/processions to ameliorate the problems faced by the general people. We are of the view that if such measures are sincerely implemented and seriously adhered to, as they should be, the inconvenience caused to the public would be minimized and the hardship faced by them should be mitigated to an appreciable extent.

With these directions, WP No. 568 of 2015 and W.P. No. 1130 of 2015 are disposed of, without, however, any order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with necessary formalities.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
3. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1954)

Important Statutes Referred

Constitution of India (1950)

• Article 14: Right to Equality – Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws to all individuals, preventing discrimination by the state.
• Article 19: Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom of Speech, etc. – Safeguards freedom of speech, assembly, and association, which might be relevant if the case involves public protests or freedom of expression issues.

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

• Section 302: Punishment for Murder – If the case involves criminal charges of homicide or murder, this provision would be applicable.
• Section 323: Punishment for Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Relevant in cases involving allegations of physical assault or harm by state officials.