3/31/2024 0 Comments Draconian constitution![]() ![]() The question is where do we have a mechanism that those desirous of protest, that if they approach the administration, will automatically be ‘allotted’ place, time and duration of protest without any discrimination? ![]() In Amit Sahni (2020), about the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests at Shaheen Bagh, the Supreme Court held that public protests and demonstrations expressing dissent must be organised in ‘designated places’ only. No law or judgment defines what exactly the people have to do to be called violent – whether cops must be injured, public property damaged or something else – if so, to what extent? Interpretations are always subjective and in a manner that helps the government. However, in those situations where the crowd becomes violent, it may necessitate and justify using reasonable force. In Anita Thakur (2016), the Supreme Court held that the right to peaceful protests without arms is a fundamental right. The catch is that a dispute whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable or not, can be settled only by the courts and that, by itself, makes it impracticable for most people. Article 19(2) empowers the state to impose ‘reasonable restrictions’ on the exercise of this right. The right to democratic protest under Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) of the constitution has been enunciated in several judgments, starting from Romesh Thappar(1950), but in practice, its exercise is riddled with difficulties. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |