Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police

Case Name: Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police

Civil Appeal No.: 3282 OF 2020

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Krishna Murari

Date of Judgment:  7^th February 2020

Parties Involved:

Appellant: Amit Sahni
Respondent: Commissioner of Police

Legal Provision Related to the Case: The Constitution of India [Article 19(a), Article 19(b), Article 19(c)], The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

Introduction:

Our Constitution has provided important provisions relating to Fundamental Rights to the citizens of the country. Fundamental rights are essential to protect the rights and liabilities of the people against the encroachment of the power delegated by them to their Government. 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 Indian Constitution under Article 19 laid down the right of all the citizens to protest against the malfunctioning of the Government. Article 19(1)(a) states that all citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(1)(b) gives the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, Article 19(1)(c) states the right to form associations or unions.

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[1]., Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India & Anr[2].

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.

Brief Background:

• The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill passed in Parliament on December 11, triggered protests across the country including Delhi.
• On 15^th December 2019 protesters gathered at the Shaheen Bagh road to oppose the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Register of Citizen (NRC) and National Population Register (NPR), which they call “anti-Muslim”. The protesters also opposed the Delhi Police action against students of Jamia Millia Islamia.
• The protest began on a key stretch, Kalindi Kunj Road that links the densely populated district Shaheen Bagh with the satellite township of Noida.

• On 14^th January 2020 A petition was filed in the Delhi High Court by social activist-advocate Amit Sahni seeking directions to the Delhi Police Chief and area DCPs to withdraw the closure of the stretch and the Okhla underpass.

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 social activist-advocate, 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 appealed the Court to direct the appropriate authorities to clear the road for the smooth passage of traffic. 
• Refusing to pass any specific direction, a bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C. Hari Shankar asked police to “react, in accordance with law, rules and government policies applicable to the facts of the present case”. It directed the police to act as per the “ground reality” and their “wisdom”.
• 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.  Meanwhile intervention applications were also filed by parties who sympathized with the protestors.
• The Supreme Court to mediate this issue, appointed two interlocutors, namely, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde and Ms. Sadhana Ramachandran. Though their efforts were unsuccessful, with the spread of Corona virus, the site was cleared. The Court nevertheless decided to go ahead with the appeal because of the case’s wider outcome and for the sake of clarity.

Issue raised before the Court:

1. Whether the right to peaceful protest under Article 19(a) and Article 19(b) of the Constitution of India is absolute both in terms of place and number of persons engaged in the protest?
2. Whether the protestors can occupy public places indefinitely?

Arguments of the Petitioner:

• The petitioner contended that the right to protest is not an absolute right and reasonable restrictions should be imposed on the exercise of this right.
• The petitioner also stated that the Shaheen Bagh protest obstructed the public roadways as the huge crowd assembled along with tents, a library, a large replica of the India Gate and the Map of India.
• 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.
• The petitioner filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court. In turn, the Delhi Court directed the appropriate officials to take necessary steps. However the situation remained the same. The authorities failed to take fruitful action. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Supreme Court through the Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Arguments of the Respondent:

• The respondent contended 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 unconstitutional and inappropriate to remove the protestors from the site.
• The authorities also asserted that the High Court ordered them to act according to the larger public interests and it should not be contrary to the law and order.
• 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.

Observations of the Supreme Court:  

• The Apex Court held that 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 the public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely.
• The Court referred to the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India , in which the Justices ruled that “each fundamental right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right.” In the case, an attempt was made to reach a solution where the rights of protestors were to be balanced with that of commuters.
• In yet another case of Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, 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 pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of technology and internet which not only accelerate the technological fueled movements but on the other hand spread rumors 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.  
• While appreciating the right to peaceful protest, the Court, unequivocally, made it clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but demonstration expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court held that it has no hesitation in concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.
• It further held that it has no doubt, it is the responsibility of the respondent authorities to take suitable action, but then such suitable action should produce results. In what manner the administration should act is their responsibility and they should not hide behind the court orders or seek support therefrom for carrying out their administrative functions.

Conclusion:

 In the case of Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, the Supreme Court has rightly upheld the spirit of Indian Constitution. The Constitution approves certain fundamental rights to the citizens which are absolutely necessary for the all round development of an individual at the same time to protect the unity, integrity and sovereignty of the country. The rights bestowed upon the citizens are not to exercise in isolation but they have to be properly balanced with other rights and duties as well. Though the Court 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.  

References:

1. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, supremecoutcases.com, https://www.supremecourtcases.com/amit-sahni-v-commissioner-of-police-and-others-2/, last seen on 12/04/2023
2. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, lawfoyer.com, https://lawfoyer.in/amit-sahni-v-commissioner-of-police/#_ftn11, last seen on 12/04/2023
3. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, lawctopus.com, https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/ailet-pg/important-cases-for-clat-2023-amit-sahni-vs-commissioner-of-police/, last seen on 12/04/2023
4. Shaheen Bagh’s 101-day protest: Timeline of sit-in against CAA, The Indian Express (March 24, 2020),https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/shaheen-bagh-protests-cleared-timeline-caa-delhi-coronavirus-6328911/ ,last seen on 12/04/2023
5. Shaheen Bagh protesters: Showing the way, The Hindu (April 04,2020), https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article31249472.ece, last seen on 12/04/2023
6. Shaheen Bagh: The women occupying Delhi street against citizenship law, BBC News (January 04,2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50902909 , last seen on 12/04/2023

---

[1] 1973 AIR 87, 1973 SCR (2) 266

[2] AIR 2018 SC 3476

This article is written by Megha Malalkar, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.