Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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