Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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