New Delhi: Even though the Constitution of India guarantees the right to free speech and expression, the right to assemble peacefully and express dissent, the courts have been called upon to interpret, expand and lay down norms governing these rights.
In 2012, the apex court had castigated Delhi police for its midnight crackdown on yoga guru Ramdev. In 2021, Supreme Court dealt with the problem of long sit-in protests in Shaheen Bagh in the capital and its resultant effect on public movement.
Though law enforcement agencies have the right to take steps to restrict unruly movement, citizens should not be unduly harassed, the top court had said, adding that authorities can’t use a “hammer to kill a fly”, underlining the need for a graded response in such situations. Taking cognisance of the incident on its own, the top court underlined that “the perception of threat to public peace and tranquility should be real and not quandary, imaginary or a mere likely possibility”. A few years down the line, the apex court dealt with a similar situation during farmers’ protest and questioned the police for “repetitive” Section 144 orders in central Delhi, noting that it had become a permanent feature to ban public meetings, rather than merely regulating them. The court stressed that “right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere” and said the occupation of a public way during the anti-CAA protests at Shaheen Bagh was “not acceptable.”
It called for the application of mind by police, rather than routinely resorting to restrictive orders. It also set aside a National Green Tribunal order banning the use of sites in central Delhi for protests as it asked police to bring guidelines to regulate these.
The top court said there may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of a public place, affecting the rights of others. Observing that democracy and dissent “go hand in hand”, the apex court said that the constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties.