'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

Right to protest must be balanced against fundamental rights of others - P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


P&H HC held in a recent Judgement (Neetu Bajaj and Anr.  Vs. State of Haryana & Oth. D.D. 04 March 2023) that the respondents' right to protest must be balanced against the fundamental rights of others, and any protest that causes inconvenience to the public must be dealt with in a manner that ensures the least possible disruption to the public. The Court directed the respondents to exercise their right to protest peacefully and in a manner that respects the rights of others.

Two residents of District Panchkula have filed a writ petition highlighting the inconvenience caused by a Dharna on the main road connecting Panchkula to Chandigarh. The road blockade is causing problems for daily commuters, ambulances, school buses, pedestrians, and creating extra traffic on other roads. The petitioners argue that the blockade is causing suffering to patients, and people are finding it difficult to reach their workplaces on time. The Chandigarh Administration has imposed Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and taken necessary precautions. The Haryana Administration has invoked Sections 133 and 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and registered an FIR against the protesters. Efforts are being made to resolve the issue amicably, and one side of the road has been cleared for commuters. The Haryana Sarpanches Association has given an assurance that they will not disrupt the road and the protest will be peaceful, but they have not agreed to shift from the present spot.

The Additional Advocate General for Haryana has submitted that the District Administration has already taken steps to resolve the issue and has requested the petitioners to cooperate in resolving the matter peacefully.

The Court noted that the right to protest is a fundamental right, but it cannot be exercised in a manner that infringes the fundamental rights of others, including the right to free movement. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, where it was held that the right to peaceful protest cannot be used as a tool to cause inconvenience to the general public.

The Court observed that the respondents have a right to express their grievances and to hold protests, but they must do so in a manner that does not infringe the fundamental rights of others. The Court directed the respondents to immediately remove the road blockade and to ensure that the traffic flow is restored on the main road connecting Panchkula with Chandigarh.

The Court further directed the Chandigarh Administration to take all necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of the respondents and to maintain law and order. The Court also directed the District Administration of Panchkula to take all necessary steps to ensure that the situation is resolved peacefully and without any disruption to the public.

P&H HC held that the respondents' right to protest must be balanced against the fundamental rights of others, and any protest that causes inconvenience to the public must be dealt with in a manner that ensures the least possible disruption to the public. The Court directed the respondents to exercise their right to protest peacefully and in a manner that respects the rights of others.

D.D. 04 March 2023

Neetu Bajaj and Anr.  Vs. State of Haryana & Oth.

 

Latest Legal News