District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High 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