Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court Contempt | Power to Punish Carries Within It the Power to Forgive: Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Term for Director Who Criticised Judges Over Stray Dog Orders Seizure and Attachment Are Not Twins: Supreme Court Holds Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts in PC Act Cases Using CrPC Section 102 IBC | Pre-Existing Dispute Must Be Real, Not Moonshine: Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Proceedings, Says Admission Cannot Be Rejected Based on Spurious Defence Summons Under FEMA Are Civil in Nature – Section 160 CrPC Has No Role to Play: Delhi High Court Denies Exemption to Woman Petitioner from Personal Appearance Before ED Clear Admission in Ledger Is Sufficient for Summary Judgment: Delhi High Court Decrees ₹16.77 Cr in Favour of MSME Supplier Mere Allegation Under SC/ST Act Doesn’t Bar Bail When No Public Abuse Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Caste Atrocity Case Consent Of Girl Aged Above 16 Is Legally Valid Under Pre-2013 Law: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction Insurer Entitled to Recover Compensation from Owner When Driver Has No Licence or Fake Licence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies ‘Pay and Recover’ Doctrine Courts Cannot Rewrite Contracts Where Parties Have Failed to Clearly Define Property Terms: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Even Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled Without Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Mass Termination Of Absorbed University Staff Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’

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