AMIT SAHNI V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Advertisements

Civil Appeal No.:-3282 of 2020

Court:- Supreme Court

Bench:- J. Sanjay kishan kaul,J. Aniruddha Bose,J. Krishna Murari Date of Judgement:-7th February 2020

Appellant:- Amit sahni Respondent:-Commissioner of police

Constitutional and legal provisions involved:- Article 19(1)(a),19(1)(b),CAA (2019)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. In December 2019,Citizenship Amendment Act(CAA),2019 was passed by the Indian Parliament.In contrary to this many protests were held in different parts of the nation.Among such,Shaheen Bagh protest in Delhi came to light.
2. The Appellant,Advocate Amit Sahni filed a writ petition on January 14,2020 in the Delhi High court against the protest stating the problem faced by the commuters.The High Court disposed off the petition on the same day,directing respondent authorities to the necessary steps.Keeping the interest of the public in large and should not be detrimental to law and order.The intervention of High Court did not led to any result.
3. Thereafter,the appellant by Special Leave Petition(SLP) approached to the supreme court against the order of the high court.The Supreme court appointed two interlocutors to mediate the issue,which resulted in failure.However,due to the ongoing spread of Coronavirus,the site was emptied.

ISSUE:-

1. Whether Right to peaceful protest under Art.19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian constitution is an Absolute Right?
2. Whether the public places can be occupied indefinitely for protest.

Arguments of the Petitioner:-

1. The petitioner,Amit Sahni asserted that the right to protest is not an absolute right,reasonable restrictions should be impose.
2. The site of the protest was disrupted by a large replica of the India gate and the Map of India,which was standing in the way of public roadways.
3. The protest led to the blockage of the main roads causing inconvenience to the commuters and disrupting the tramc flow.
4. Demanding for the change in locations for the protestor to express their grievance without causing annoyance to others.As public order and unhindered tramc flow are important aspect of a society.
5. An appeal was filed in Delhi High court,the court directed the respondent authorities to take necessary actions.However,no action was taken and the situation remained the same.Therefore,an appeal was filed in Supreme court by Special Leave petition(SLP).

Arguments of the Respondent:

1. The respondent stated that Article 19(1)(a),19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) has been guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.It is inappropriate to remove the protestor.
2. The High Court ordered them to act in accordance with the larger public interest and not against the law and order.
3. The respondent stated that they were confferred with the power to vacate the site if any signs of violence occured in the protest.

JUDGEMENT:

1. Supreme court held that the indefinite occupation of the public road by the protestor were unacceptable and directed the administration to take appropriate actions to keep the areas clear of encroachments.
2. The Supreme court upheld the right to peaceful protest against the law but gave a clear direction that the public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely.
3. Fundamental Rights has to be balanced with every other variance of rights.MAZDOOR KISAN SHAKTI SANGATHAN case,Fundamental rights does not exist in isolation be it of individual or of a class.
4. The supreme court held that democracy and dissent go hand in hand,but the dissent expresssed by the demonstrators must be in designated places only.

References:

Global Freedom of Expression | India, Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police and Ors., Civil Appeal No.3282 of 2020 – Global Freedom of Expression (columbia.edu)

Amit Sahni vs Commissioner of police and Ors – The Amikus Qriae

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin