Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial

Muslim Maha Panchyat Not Allowed: Balancing Rights and Order: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has upheld the fundamental right to protest and express grievances as essential in a democratic society. The bench, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad, stressed the importance of striking a balance between individual rights and public safety, stating, "Balancing Rights and Order is crucial in a democracy," and refused to allow Muslim Mahapanchyat.

The judgment, delivered on October 25, 2023, addressed constitutional law, specifically the right to assemble and demonstrate, and the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution of India. The court underlined the significance of safeguarding the right to peaceful protest, emphasizing that "The duty of courts is to protect these rights."

Additionally, the court delved into the limitations on the right to freedom of speech, asserting that "The exercise of the power to restrict this right should serve the ends of constitutional rights rather than subvert them." It stressed that restrictions on these rights, in the interest of public order and decency, should be reasonable and preventive rather than provocative.

The judgment also discussed concerns related to law and order, acknowledging the role of the police in maintaining public security and social order. The court referred to statutory provisions granting power to the police to uphold public order and highlighted the necessity for law enforcement agencies to take preventive actions to avert situations that could disrupt public tranquillity.

The bench's decision, made in response to a writ petition, dismissed the petition based on the apprehension of a potential law and order situation by law enforcement authorities. It was noted that executive authorities are granted some discretion in decision-making, and applicants have the opportunity to reapply for permission with proper assurances to the authorities.

The judgment cited several relevant cases and advocates representing the parties involved, underscoring the significance of the issue. Advocates such as Mr. R.H.A. Sikander, Mr. Daya Ram Badalia, and Mr. Apoorv Kurup were among those involved in the case.

This ruling underscores the critical importance of preserving democratic values while ensuring public safety, setting a significant precedent for future cases involving the right to protest and freedom of speech in India.

Date of Decision: 25 October  2023

 MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION  VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.        

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/25-Oct-23-Missio_Save_Constitution_Vs_UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News