Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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"]

Similar News