Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

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