High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High 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