TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion, Parliament Street, New Delhi District prohibiting the following activities without written permission in the areas known as Parliament House, North and South Block, Central Vista Lawns together with its surrounding localities and areas: i) The holding of any public meeting; ii) Assembly of five or more persons; iii) Carrying of fire-arms, banners, placards, lathis, spears, swords, sticks, brickbats etc. iv) Shouting of slogans; v) Making of speeches etc. vi) Processions and demonstrations; vii) Picketing or dharnas in any public place within the area specified in the Schedule and site plan appended to this order 2. It is the grievance of the Petitioner that though a particular order passed Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains in force for a period of 60 days, simultaneously on the expiry of the said period of 60 days another order of identical nature is passed thereby banning the holding of public meetings, peaceful assembly and peaceful demonstrations by the public at large. This, according to the Petitioner, is the arbitrary exercise of power which infringes the fundamental right of peaceful ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion and offices of political parties. The grievances were that Jantar Mantar has become a ground for organizing protest by various categories of groups, political and non-political. Such protests are not temporary or transient. The protestors have rather put up tents and other arrangements where people have been staying for many months. Some of the structures have been on the site for past several years. It was also averred that the manner in which the demonstrations are held and the area occupied by the protesters are causing noise pollution and air pollution, thereby causing insurmountable and untold miseries to the residents and causing adverse health effect on the residents and their children. 4. The prayer made in the Original Application was to pass appropriate orders directing the Police Commissioner and other government authorities (who were arrayed as Respondents) to disallow the protestors of Jantar Mantar Road stretch between Ashoka Road and Parliament Street or prevent them from using loudspeaker or public announcement system. The NGT after hearing the matter has rendered its judgment on 5th October, 2017, allowing the Original Application of Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eches, etc. at Jantar Mantar, is precluded from raising its voice because of the order passed by the NGT imposing ban on such types of assemblies. 8. The aforesaid introduction in these two cases clearly reveals the commonality of the issues and legal precepts on the basis of which the subject matter of all the cases is to be decided. For this reason, all the four cases were clubbed together ad heard simultaneously. FACTS: W.P. (CIVIL) No. 1153 OF 2017: 9. This PIL is filed by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (for short, "MKSS"). It is claimed that MKSS is a grassroot, unregistered people's organisation formed in 1990 with its headquarters in Devdungri, Rajasthan with bank account number 51041231248 in State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bhim. The MKSS was a crucial part of the movement that led to the passage of the Right to Information Act in 2005. The platform of village based public hearings or "Jan Sunwais" pioneered by the MKSS in the mid-1990s became institutionalized in processes of the government and is also used as a means of public audit across the country. The MKSS has also been a strong supporter and an integral part of the movement demanding the Right to Work, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct do hereby make this written order prohibiting: i) The holding of any public meeting; ii) Assembly of five or more persons; iii) Carrying of fire-arms, banners, placards, lathis, spears, swords, sticks, brickbats etc. iv) Shouting of slogans; v) Making of speeches etc. vi) Processions and demonstrations; vii) Picketing or dharnas in any public place within the area specified in the Schedule and site plan appended to this order; 5. The specific area covered by this prohibitory order, will be the area and building surrounded by Sansad Marg/opposite Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Old Court Building, towards Sansad Marg/Ashoka Road crossing, Ashoka Road, Windsor Place (inclusive Road), Ashoka Road upto Man Singh Road/Ashoka Road R/A, T/R Man Singh Road (exclusive) upto Rajpath, then T/R on Rajpath (inclusive) upto Vijay Chowk, then T/L upto South Fountain, T/R Dalhousie Road upto R/A Dalhousie Road/Rajaji Marg/Dalhousie Road (exclusive R/A), T/R South Block, Rajpath, North Block, Central Sectt., Church Road upto Gate No. 35 of Rashtrapati Bhawan including MP Flats, North Avenue upto R/A RML (exclusive), Baba Khark ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pidit Mahaila Stationary Karamchari Sangh member in 2010 before the Delhi High Court, who had come along with other activists to Delhi to raise a protest because of the failure of the Government of India to set up an empowered commission to look into the problems of the victims of toxic gases leak from the plant of the Union Carbide in 1984 but the same protests were being rendered unfruitful because of the orders of the Delhi Police continuously imposing restrictions on the right to protest in Central Delhi. The High Court on 31st May, 2011, disposed of the petition when the Delhi Police filed an affidavit stating that the continuous prohibition Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under the jurisdiction of the New Delhi District declaring certain areas as prohibited area for holding any public meeting, dharna, peaceful protest, etc. has been discontinued. Despite this, the practice of repeated imposition of orders Under Section 144 continues, severely restricting the citizens' fundamental right to protest and peaceful assembly. 14. The Petitioner also states that the Delhi Police has even advertised for protesters to use Jantar Mantar as the site of protest. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized non-violent protest marches were a key weapon in the struggle for independence and the right to peaceful protest is now recognised as a fundamental right in the Constitution. He accepted that while on the one hand, citizens are guaranteed fundamental right of speech and the right to assemble for the purpose of carrying peaceful protest/processions, on the other hand, reasonable restrictions on such rights can be placed by law. Provisions of the Indian Penal code (for short, 'IPC') and Code of Criminal Procedure are in the nature of such reasonable restrictions, which are statutory provisions giving powers to the State to ensure that such public assemblies, protests, dharnas or marches are peaceful and they do not become unlawful. However, his submission was that while exercising such powers the authorities are supposed to act within the limits of law and cannot indulge in excesses in what can be seen as another bid to stifle and impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly. 16. The submission of Mr. Prashant Bhushan was that having regard to the aforesaid constitutional position, provision of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ightly taken the view that it is not legitimate to go on making successive orders after earlier orders have lapsed by efflux of time. A Full Bench consisting of the entire Court of 12 Judges in Gopi Mohun Mullick v. Taramoni Chowdhrani examining the provisions of Section 518 of the Code of 1861 (corresponding to present Section 144) took the view that such an action was beyond the Magistrate's powers. Making of successive orders was disapproved by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Bishessur Chuckerbutty v. Emperor. Similar view was taken in Swaminatha Mudaliar v. Gopalakrishna Naidu, Taturam Sahu v. State of Orissa, Ram Das Gaur v. City Magistrate, Varanasi, and Ram Narain Sah v. Parmeshar Prasad Sah. We have no doubt that the ratio of these decisions represents a correct statement of the legal position. The proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 144 which gives the State Government jurisdiction to extend the prohibitory order for a maximum period of six months beyond the life of the order made by the Magistrate is clearly indicative of the position that Parliament never intended the life of an order Under Section 144 of the Code to remain in force beyond two mont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bly to vent out their grievance. He submitted that it was a valuable right which was given to the citizenry to let off their esteem and if that right of peaceful demonstration is not allowed, it may take a violent turn. 18. Mr. Bhushan, learned Counsel, referred to various judgments where such a right is recognised as fundamental right. 19. He also referred to certain other judgments (1970) 3 SCC 746, 1961 (3) SCR 423, (2012) 5 SCC 1, (1978) 1 SCC 226, (1973) 1 SCC 227, (1983) 4 SCC 522 to buttress his submission that the powers Under Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure are intended to be used for preventing disorders, obstructions and annoyances. 20. Mr. Bhushan went to the extent of citing international standards, conventions and judgments of foreign courts on the right to peaceful assembly and the right to protest. In support of his submission that such a right had been recognised world over in all democratic countries governed by Rule of law, he referred to international conventions like Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Right and Convention on the Rights of the Child. He also relied upon the Guidelines on Freedom of P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner. Laying much stress on the sensitive character of the area in question, to justify the issuance of orders passed Under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they made a fervent plea to uphold these orders. Referring to certain passages from Babulal Parate, it was submitted that 'clear and present danger' test which was applied by US Courts in such cases was not applicable in the Indian context and the correct test as applied by this Court was that of 'apprehension of breach of peace' test. Specific reliance was placed on the following paragraphs from Babulal Parate. 14. Looking at the Section as a whole it would be clear that, broadly speaking, it is intended to be availed of for preventing disorders, obstructions and annoyances and is intended to secure the public weal. The powers are exercisable by responsible Magistrates and these Magistrates have to act judicially. Moreover, the restraints permissible under the provision are of a temporary nature and can only be imposed in an emergency. xxx xxx xxx 19. It is contended that Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers very wide powers upon certain Magistrates and that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause. The Code of Criminal Procedure was an existing law at the commencement of the Constitution and so, in the context of the grounds on which its validity is challenged before us, what we have to ascertain is whether the conferral thereunder of a power on a Magistrate to place restrictions on the rights to which Sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Article 19 relate is reasonable. It must be borne in mind that the provisions of Section 144 are attracted only in an emergency. Thereunder, the initial Judge of the emergency is, no doubt, the District Magistrate or the Chief Presidency Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government. But then, the maintenance of law and order being the duty and function of the executive department of the State it is inevitable that the question of formation of the opinion as to whether there is an emergency or not must necessarily rest, in the first instance, with those persons through whom the executive exercises its functions and discharges its duties. It would be impracticable and even impossible to expe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitution are not absolute rights but, as pointed out in State of Madras v. V.G. Row [1952 SCR 597] are subject to the restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article 19. There is nothing in the American Constitution corresponding to Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of our Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, among other things, that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ....". 24. The framework of our Constitution is different from that of the Constitution of the United States. Then again, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the privileges and immunities conferred by the Constitution are subject to social control by resort to the doctrine of police power. It is in the light of this background that the test laid down in Scheneck case [Scheneck v. U.S., 249, US 47] has to be understood. 25. The language of Section 144 is somewhat different. The test laid down in the Section is not merely "likelihood" or "tendency". The Sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd not shirk it by prohibiting or restricting the normal activities of the citizen. But it is difficult to say that an anticipatory action taken by such an authority in an emergency where danger to public order is genuinely apprehended is anything other than an action done in the discharge of the duty to maintain order. In such circumstances that could be the only mode of discharging the duty. We, therefore, reject the contention that Section 144 substitutes suppression of lawful activity or right for the duty of public authorities to maintain order. 29. Coming to the order itself we must consider certain objections of Mr. Mani which are, in effect, that there are three features in the order which make it unconstitutional. In the first place, according to him the order is directed against the entire public though the Magistrate has stated clearly that it was promulgated because of the serious turn which an industrial dispute had taken. Mr. Mani contends that it is unreasonable to place restrictions on the movements of the public in general when there is nothing to suggest that members of the public were likely to indulge in activities prejudicial to public order. It is true....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holding any such public meetings, processions, demonstrations, etc. prior permission of the authorities was required which should be considered on case to case basis. 25. The learned ASGs laid great emphasis on the fact that New Delhi was the capital city and entire activity of Central Government was mainly located in Central Delhi area which was covered by the prohibitory orders passed, namely, Parliament House, North and South Block, Central Vista Lawns and its surrounding localities and areas. It was also emphasised that there were official visits by foreign dignitaries to this capital city on a regular basis and any untoward incident as a consequence of such public meetings, processions, demonstrations, dharnas, etc had potentials of damaging the reputation of the country itself. The learned Counsel went to the extent of arguing that there had been instances where, in the past, on the visit of particular Heads of the Foreign States, attempts were made to hold demonstrations against such persons and their visits, which was not conducive for maintaining healthy bilateral relations between the two countries. The submission in the aforesaid context was that the area covered by pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and Ors. are able to exercise their right of demonstration, etc., the area in Ramlila Maidan was specifically earmarked for such purposes. It was, thus, argued that promulgation of Section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure was not only a matter of necessity to prevent the breach of public tranquility, riot, affray, but was also in public interest and public safety. Such an order was said to be legally justified on the test of principles laid down in Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970) 3 SCC 746, where the Court held as under: 24. ...There is no general proposition that an order Under Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be passed without taking evidence: see Mst Jagrupa Kumari v. Chobey Narain Singh [37 Cr LJ 95] which in our opinion is correct in laying down this proposition. These fundamental facts emerge from the way the occasions for the exercise of the power are mentioned. Disturbances of public tranquility, riots and affray lead to subversion of public order unless they are prevented in time. Nuisances dangerous to human life, health or safety have no doubt to be abated and prevented. We are, however, not concerned with this part of the Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quently exploited to foment violence whenever mass demonstrations or dharnas, etc. take place. It is unfortunate that more often than not, such protesters take to hooliganism, vandalism and even destroy public/private property. In the process, when police tries to control, the protesters/mob violently target policemen as well. Unruly groups and violent demonstrations are so common that people have come to see them as an appendage of Indian democracy. All these situations frequently result in police using force. This in turn exacerbates public anger against the police. In Kashmir itself there have been numerous instances where separatist groups have provoked violence. In this scenario, task of the police and law-enforcing agencies becomes more difficult and delicate. In curbing such violence or dispersing unlawful assemblies, police has to accomplish its task with utmost care, deftness and precision. Thus, on the one hand, law and order needs to be restored and at the same time, it is also to be ensured that unnecessary force or the force beyond what is absolutely essential is not used. Policemen are required to undergo special training to deal with these situations. Many times the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....offices of some of the political parties on the said road. 34. The NGT noticed that Jantar Mantar Road has become a ground for raising protest by various category of groups, political and non-political. Such protests are not temporary or transient. The protestors have rather put up tents and other arrangements where people have been staying for many months. Some of the structures have been on the side of the street. The organizers of these protests make arrangement for food, lodging, etc. on such makeshift structures. They have also affixed loud speakers at various places in the area. NDMC has provided the facility of sanitation and cleaning by making provision for only two mobile toilets. The photographs attached to the application clearly depict the plight of the poor residents, some of them being senior citizens, who had been protesting against unhygienic conditions, litters, crowds, noise pollution, etc. for last couple of years. Apart from it, the personnel of police/paramilitary force at the said stretch of road, which on some days of protest go up to around 200 to 400, also adds to the congestion in the area. The sanitation facility provided in such a situation is grossly i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shing and drying their clothes, etc. 36. Since long, on the stretch of Jantar Mantar road protest/dharnas are being regularly organized (despite there being no legal or administrative order/permission for designating of place as a protest ground). In recent past, the number of protest/dharnas, as well as that of people constituting them have tremendously increased. The pollution in the area have also increased many folds, on account of noise, large gathering of people, waste, etc. The noise pollution has been increased due to installation of traditional public address system based on the horn loud speakers by protestors. Besides, assembling of large crowds which is at times in thousands, also contribute to the noise pollution. Further, the plight of the residents is compounded by deployment of large number of police and para military personals to control and manage the protestors. In the result, it not only restricts entry/exit of the residents from their respective residences but also, at times, permits access to the residents only by foot due to complete stoppage of vehicles. There have been instances where the visitors of the people residing in the area have to p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the residents of the locality who cannot sleep at night, face noise pollution during the day, having difficulties in ingress and egress to their residencies, much less to say, to take their vehicles up to their residences. Many a times, when dharnas, agitations, processions, etc. are on their peak specially during Parliament session, the residents are even prevented or with great difficulty they are able to walk down to their residences because the Police for the purpose of maintaining law and order puts barricades and even close the road. Such being the situation of the stretch on Jantar Mantar road, great difficulties have been created to the children/students residing in that area. The situation is being aggravated day by day and has resulted in health problems for the residents as many of them now have high blood pressure, become hart patient and old age persons have now started suffering from chronic ailments. The road starting from Jantar Mantar and leading to Parliament has turned into a place of totally different nature which is being used for various purposes. The protesters come there from various parts of the country travelling by trucks, buses, etc., and they park t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otests/dharnas/agitations were allowed only at Ramlila Maidan, near Ajmeri Gate in Delhi. The said area was the place where people used to assemble for purposes of protest march and processions. It was the point from where the agitators were to start for their destinations like Parliament House, office/residence of the Chief Minister, the Home Minister, etc. etc. Subsequently, the battle ground for protestors and agitators came to be the Boat Club near India Gate. Later, the Police shifted the place of agitation from Boat Club to Jantar Mantar, apparently for the reason that the said place was creating obstruction to traffic. It was the department of Police, as is also mentioned in the reply, that fixed this new place for agitations, dharnas, starting of processions, etc. upto a total number of 5000 people and in case of more, the venue would be Ramlila Maidan. Moreover, with passage of time, the place for agitators/protestors to assemble and start their processions had no longer remained at Jantar Mantar but came down to Jantar Mantar road which, as on date, is fully occupied by protestors, agitators, dharnas, temporary structures/make shifts, demonstrations, slogans, display of v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onths together. Even structures had been put on the side of the street, where arrangement for food, lodging etc. were being made. * The protestors had affixed loud speakers at various places in the area. * Use of these loud speakers at all times, including odd times and night hours, was creating noise pollution and this pollution was getting worsened with the continuous plays of drums, music and microphones etc. This noise pollution was exceeding the permissible limits laid down in the relevant rules. * The sanitation facility provided was grossly inadequate, it was resulting in foul smell emanating from mobile toilet, thereby creating unhygienic conditions in the area. * These unhygienic conditions were compounded by the fact that even cows were brought to the said stretch of road by the protestors and were kept for months together. * On a heavy protest day, the police were completely blocking the Jantar Mantar road by barricading, as a result, residents of the area were forced to park, their vehicles elsewhere and make way to their residences on foot. * It was causing extreme inconvenience to the residents and, in particular, senior....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the residents Under Article 21 of the Constitution: 45. It is further submitted that though the protestors at Jantar Mantar road were being allowed to exercise fundamental right to protest by way of loudspeakers, but the said right cannot be provided by the State to curtail the rights of the residents citizens, qua the right not to listen. The said principle of reasonable restriction on this right is enshrined in Article 19(2) to (6) of the Constitution of India and the burden of proof on State to justify reasonability. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident. 46. It is also argued that the Central Government, through MoEF & CC, have notified Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules on 11.02.2000, under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, wherein difference zones such as industrial, residential, commercial and silence zones have been categorised for the purpose of Regulation and control of noise producing and generating sources. These Rules govern the restriction of the use of loud speaker, public address system, noise producing system, etc. Provisions have also been made for ambient air quality standards in respect of noi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 423, this Court observed: The right of citizens to take out processions or to hold public meetings flows from the right in Article 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms and the right to move anywhere in the territory of India. 50. In Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962) Supp 3 SCR 369 the Court was mainly dealing with the question whether the right to make a demonstration is protected Under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) and whether a government servant is entitled to this right. This Court held: A demonstration might take the form of an assembly and even then the intention is to convey to the person or authority to whom the communication is intended the feelings of the group which assembles. It necessarily follows that there are forms of demonstration which would fall within the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). It is needless to add that from the very nature of things a demonstration may take various forms; it may be noisy and disorderly, for instance stone-throwing by a crowd may be cited as an example of a violent and disorderly demonstration and this would not obviously be within Article 19(1)(a) or (b). It can equally be peaceful....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the right to exclude or admit anyone he pleases. That may not accord with the concept of dedication of public streets and parks. The parks are held for public and the public streets are also held for the public. It is doubtless true that the State or local authority can regulate its property in order to serve its public purposes. Streets and public parks exist primarily for other purposes and the social interest promoted by untrammelled exercise of freedom of utterance and assembly in public street must yield to social interest which prohibition and Regulation of speech are designed to protect. But there is a constitutional difference between reasonable Regulation and arbitrary exclusion. 52. While adjudicating with respect to the validity of police action against protestors, this Court again reiterated that right to protest was a fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens Under Article 19. In the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident (supra), the Court observed that the right to assembly and peaceful agitations were basic features of a democratic system and the Government should encourage exercise of these rights: 245. Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is no jural anathema". It hardly needs elaboration that a distinguishing feature of any democracy is the space offered for legitimate dissent. One cherished and valuable aspect of political life in India is a tradition to express grievances through direct action or peaceful protest. Organised, non-violent protest marches were a key weapon in the struggle for Independence, and the right to peaceful protest is now recognised as a fundamental right in the Constitution. 13. Notwithstanding above, it is also to be borne in mind that the aforesaid rights are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, as well as public order. It is for this reason, the State authorities many a times designate particular areas and routes, dedicating them for the purpose of holding public meetings. 15. Thus, while on the one hand, citizens are guaranteed fundamental right of speech, right to assemble for the purpose of carrying peaceful protest processions and right of free movement, on the other hand, reasonable restrictions on such right can be put by law. Provisions of Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, discussed above, ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bject to reasonable restrictions which can be imposed, inter alia, in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. This legal position is also accepted by all the parties. 57. In this hue, we have to examine as to whether total ban of demonstrations etc. at Jantar Mantar road amounts to violation of the rights of the protestors of the Constitution or this would amount to a reasonable restriction in the interest of 'public order'. There would be also an incidental and interrelated issue, namely, whether the manner in which the demonstrations etc. are held at Jantar Mantar, they violate the fundamental right of the residents guaranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution. If the answer is in the affirmative, it would raise another issue, namely, balancing of the two rights. The right of the protestors Under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution and the rights of the residents Under Article 21 of the Constitution, as both the rights are fundamental rights. 58. In the aforesaid context, it would be pertinent to point out that there may be situations where conflict may arise between two fundamental rights. Situation can be conflict on inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed our anxious consideration on the said passage, we are disposed to think that the above passage is of no assistance to the Petitioners, for the issue herein is sustenance and balancing of the separate rights, one Under Article 19(1)(a) and the other, Under Article 21. Hence, the concept of equipoise and counterweighing fundamental rights of one with other person. It is not a case of mere better enjoyment of another freedom. In Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, it has been observed that a particular fundamental right cannot exist in isolation in a watertight compartment. One fundamental right of a person may have to coexist in harmony with the exercise of another fundamental right by others and also with reasonable and valid exercise of power by the State in the light of the directive principles in the interests of social welfare as a whole. The Court's duty is to strike a balance between competing claims of different interests. In DTC v. Mazdoor Congress the Court has ruled that articles relating to fundamental rights are all parts of an integrated scheme in the Constitution and their waters must mix to constitute that grand flo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res the Constitution by the High Court. To understand the controversy, the Court posed the following questions: (Rev. Stainislaus case, SCC p. 681, para 14) 14. ... (1) whether the two Acts were violative of the fundamental right guaranteed Under Article 25(1) of the Constitution, and (2) whether the State Legislatures were competent to enact them? 59. It was contended before this Court that the right to propagate one's religion means the right to convert a person to one's own religion and such a right is guaranteed by Article 25(1) of the Constitution. The larger Bench dealing with the said contention held: (Rev. Stainislaus case, SCC p. 682, para 20) 20. We have no doubt that it is in this sense that the word "propagate" has been used in Article 25(1), for what the Article grants is not the right to convert another person to one's own religion, but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. It has to be remembered that Article 25(1) guarantees "freedom of conscience" to every citizen, and not merely to the followers of one particular religion, and that, in turn postulates that there is no fundamental right to conve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....macy to claim or assert the right. The factum of legitimacy is a primary consideration. It has to be remembered that no fundamental right is absolute and it can have limitations in certain circumstances. Thus, permissible limitations are imposed by the State. The said limitations are to be within the bounds of law. However, when there is intra-conflict of the right conferred under the same article, like fair trial in this case, the test that is required to be applied, we are disposed to think, it would be "paramount collective interest" or "sustenance of public confidence in the justice dispensation system". An example can be cited. A group of persons in the name of "class honour", as has been stated in Vikas Yadav v. State of U.P., cannot curtail or throttle the choice of a woman. It is because choice of woman in choosing her partner in life is a legitimate constitutional right. It is founded on individual choice that is recognised in the Constitution Under Article 19, and such a right is not expected to succumb to the concept of "class honour" or "group thinking". It is because the sense of class honour has no legitimacy even if it is practised by the collective under some kind o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rights of protestors to hold demonstrations at Jantar Mantar road and, therefore, amounts to reasonable restriction in curbing such demonstrations. Here, we agree with the detailed reasoning given by the NGT that holding of demonstrations in the way it has been happening is causing serious discomfort and harassment to the residents. At the same time, it is also to be kept in mind that for quite some time Jantar Mantar has been chosen as a place for holding demonstrations and was earmarked by the authorities as well. Going by the dicta in Asha Ranjan, principle of primacy cannot be given to one right whereby the right of the other gets totally extinguished. Total extinction is not balancing. Balancing would mean curtailing one right of one class to some extent so that the right of the other class is also protected. 62. We feel that the pathetic conditions which were caused as a result of the processions, demonstrations and agitations etc. at the Jantar Mantar were primarily because of the reason that authorities did not take necessary measures to regulate the same. Had adequate and sufficient steps were taken by the authorities to ensure that such dharnas and demonstrations are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s before the NGT, the NGT went by the ground realities and the pathetic situation faced by the residents because of such demonstrations. Though this analysis of the NGT is without blemish, we, however, feel that the solution was not to ban the demonstrations altogether. Instead, the NGT would have directed the authorities to adopt such measures (some of which are indicated by us above) so that there is a balancing of the rights of both the Sections of the society. 64. At this juncture, while discussing the aspect of balancing of the two rights, we have to keep in mind certain other relevant factors as well. In the first instance, what needs to be noted is that a portion of Ramlila Maidan has been earmarked for such demonstrations etc. Therefore, that space is already available. One of the argument raised by the Petitioner in the writ petition and Appellants in the appeal is that Ramlila Maidan is far away from that portion of New Delhi area where there is a concentration of 'power' and, therefore, holding protests and demonstration at a far place in Ramlila Maidan would have no impact or very little effect. It was stressed that the purpose of holding such demonstrations an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on (Civil) No. 1153 of 2017 wants boat club area to be available for demonstrations, etc. The Petitioner has successfully demonstrated that it is their fundamental right Under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. At the same time, it is also not denied that there can be reasonable restrictions on exercise of this right in larger public interest. The Respondents have also highlighted in equal measure the sensitivity of this area because of its proximity to the Parliament House, North and South Blocks and other Central Government offices, including frequent visits of Heads of foreign States and other such factors. The Respondents are also justified in pointing out that alarmingly large number of requests for holding demonstrations at this place are made. Further, intelligence reports reveal that some of such demonstrations, if allowed, may cause serious law and order situation. The Respondents are also correct to the extent that this Court has not adopted 'clear and present danger test', as applied by the US Courts, and instead it is the 'apprehension of breach of peace test' which is to be used in order to decide as to whether a particular demonstratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etuity. It is argued on behalf of the Respondents that as there is no change in the situation, which remains the same insofar as sensitivity of this area and specific/peculiar conditions prevailing, such orders in repetitive form are necessitated. Even if we accept this position and proceed on that basis, this would only mean continuous Regulation of the proposed public meetings, processions, demonstrations, etc. by not allowing the same in 'unrestricted' manner. However, in reality no such activities are allowed at all and, therefore, the situation which is created amounts to 'banning' these public meetings, demonstrations, dharnas, etc. altogether rather than 'regulating' the same. 70. In the aforesaid conspectus, here also the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and other official Respondents can frame proper guidelines for regulating such protests, demonstrations, etc. As noted above, the orders issued Under Section 144 prohibit certain activities in the nature of demonstrations etc. 'without permission', meaning thereby permission can be granted in certain cases. There can, therefore, be proper guidelines laying down the parameters under which pe....