Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a public interest litigation filed before the Delhi High Court concerning the blockade of the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, including the Okhla underpass, by protestors opposing the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the National Register of Citizens. The protest began on 15 December 2019 and continued for months, causing significant traffic disruption. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 14 January 2020, directing the respondent authorities to consider the grievance in accordance with law while balancing public interest and law and order. Dissatisfied, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated 17 February 2020, noted that the right to protest is fundamental but must be exercised without affecting public ways. The court appointed two interlocutors, senior advocate Sanjay R. Hegde and mediator trainer Sadhana Ramachandran, to mediate with the protestors. Despite their efforts, the mediation did not succeed due to the wide-ranging demands and the presence of multiple groups with conflicting interests. The interlocutors' reports revealed that while women protestors were inside tents, a periphery of male protestors and volunteers had erected structures including a library, a model of India Gate, and a large metal map of India, making removal difficult. The COVID-19 pandemic intervened, and the protest site was eventually cleared by police action. The Supreme Court held that the reliefs had worked themselves out and disposed of the appeal. However, the court also addressed the legal principles concerning the right to protest, emphasizing that the right under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, and that public roads cannot be occupied indefinitely. The court referred to precedents such as Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India to underscore that while peaceful protest is protected, it must be regulated to prevent obstruction to traffic and public order. The court declined to lay down specific norms for future protests, noting that the situation had resolved itself.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Protest - Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India - Right to peaceful protest is fundamental but subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order; public roads cannot be blocked indefinitely as it affects the rights of others and public order. The court held that while the right to protest is protected, it must be exercised without causing obstruction to public ways or public order. (Paras 13-16) B) Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Legislature, Executive, Judiciary - The court reiterated the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, noting that the legislature enacts laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary tests their validity. The court observed that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is pending constitutional challenge but no stay has been granted. (Paras 1-3) C) Mediation - Court-Appointed Interlocutors - Role of Interlocutors - The court appointed interlocutors to mediate with protestors to resolve the blockade. Despite efforts, mediation did not succeed due to the wide nature of demands and lack of unified leadership. The court held that it is better to try and fail than not to try at all. (Paras 9-11) D) Procedural Law - Relief Becoming Infructuous - Pandemic - The relief sought in the petition became infructuous as the protest site was cleared due to the COVID-19 pandemic and police action. The court disposed of the appeal accordingly. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the right to peaceful protest under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) includes the right to occupy public roads indefinitely, and whether the court should lay down norms for future protests
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal holding that the reliefs had worked themselves out as the protest site was cleared due to the COVID-19 pandemic and police action. The court declined to lay down specific norms for future protests but reiterated that the right to protest is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and that public roads cannot be occupied indefinitely.
Law Points
- Right to peaceful protest under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order
- public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely
- mediation efforts by court are permissible but not binding
- pandemic can render reliefs infructuous
