New Delhi: Even though the Constitution of India guarantees the right to free speech and expression, the right to assemble peacefully and express dissent, the courts have been called upon to interpret, expand and lay down norms governing these rights.A key balance the courts have tried to strike is in the interplay between Article 19(1)(a) and (b) dealing with freedom of expression and the right to assemble on the one hand and Article 19(2) (3) that permit authorities to impose “reasonable restrictions” citing the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the safety of the State, public order, decency or morality, etc.On Friday itself, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant reminded govt of these provisions while directing the Centre to ensure that there was no “complete prohibition” of the movement of metro and trains coming to Delhi on Oct 10 due to the protest, saying they cannot bring everything to a halt.Though law enforcement agencies have the right to take steps to restrict unruly movement, citizens should not be unduly harassed, the top court had said, adding that authorities can’t use a “hammer to kill a fly”, underlining the need for a graded response in such situations.In 2012, the apex court had castigated Delhi police for its midnight crackdown on yoga guru Ramdev. Taking cognisance of the incident on its own, the top court underlined that “the perception of threat to public peace and tranquility should be real and not quandary, imaginary or a mere likely possibility”. It called for the application of mind by police, rather than routinely resorting to restrictive orders.A few years down the line, the apex court dealt with a similar situation during farmers’ protest and questioned the police for “repetitive” Section 144 orders in central Delhi, noting that it had become a permanent feature to ban public meetings, rather than merely regulating them. It also set aside a National Green Tribunal order banning the use of sites in central Delhi for protests as it asked police to bring guidelines to regulate these.In 2021, Supreme Court dealt with the problem of long sit-in protests in Shaheen Bagh in the capital and its resultant effect on public movement. The court stressed that “right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere” and said the occupation of a public way during the anti-CAA protests at Shaheen Bagh was “not acceptable.”The top court said there may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of a public place, affecting the rights of others. Observing that democracy and dissent “go hand in hand”, the apex court said that the constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties.
