Author: Afrin Gulshan, Campus Law Centre, Faculty Of Law, D.U.
Abstract
The Ramlila Maidan Incident v Home Secretary, Union of India & Ors.( 2012) is a corner case in Indian indigenous law. The case dealt with the right to public kick and its limits in the environment of maintaining public order. The case arose out of the forceful eviction of protestors, led by social activist Anna Hazare, from the Ramlila Maidan in Delhi, where they had gathered to protest against corruption and demand the creation of a Lokpal Bill. The eviction, which passed during the night, led to a legal battle questioning the balance between freedom of speech and public order. The Supreme Court addressed issues related to the right to assemble peacefully and the right to protestunder the Indian Constitution, as well as the powers of the state to circumscribe similar rights in the name of maintaining public order.
To the Point
In Ramlila Maidan Incident, the crucial issue before the Supreme Court of India was the right of citizens to assemble peacefully and kick, versus the government’s duty to maintain public order. The kick at Ramlila Maidan was organized to demand the passage of the Lokpal Bill, a bill aimed at creating ananti-corruption ombudsman in India. The Delhi Police, acting under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code( CrPC), evicted the protestors from the Maidan, citing enterprises over violations of authorization and public order. The issue of whether such an eviction violated the indigenous rights of the protestors under Composition 19( 1)( b)( freedom to assemble peacefully) and Composition 19( 1)( a)( freedom of speech and expression) was at the heart of the case.
Legal Precedents and Case Laws
Verma v. Union of India( 1953) This case addressed the limits of freedom of speech in relation to public order. The Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of expression can be confined if it poses a trouble to public order, safety, or morality.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India( 1978) This corner judgment expanded the compass of Composition 19( 1)( a) and affirmed that the right to freedom of speech and expression is n’t absolute and can be confined under reasonable grounds of public order and sovereignty and integrity of India.
Ramlila Maidan Incident Case( 2012) The Supreme Court ruled that public demurrers are a indigenous right under Composition 19( 1)( b), and that the government must balance this right with the need to maintain public order. The Court observed that similar rights could only be confined if there was a clear and imminent trouble to public safety, and not arbitrarily or in a disproportionate manner.
Shahid Balwa & Ors. v Union of India( 2014) This case corroborated the notion that popular dissent through public demurrers is a abecedarian right, but it can be limited to help any violence or dislocation of public order.
The Judgment
The Supreme Court addressed crucial legal issues in the Ramlila Maidan Incident and issued a comprehensive judgment on the compass of the right to protest and public order. The Court made the following points
Right to Protest as a Fundamental Right The Court reaffirmed that the right to assemble peacefully and the right to protest are defended under Composition 19( 1)( b) and Composition 19( 1)( a) of the Indian Constitution. The judgment emphasized that these rights are central to India’s popular frame and allow citizens to express their dissatisfaction with government programs.
Limits of the Right to Protest The Court stated that while the right to peaceful kick is abecedarian, it is n’t absolute. The government has the power to put reasonable restrictions on similar assemblies under Composition 19( 3), but these restrictions must be commensurable and necessary to maintain public order.
Public Order and Government Intervention The government’s intervention through police action to disperse the crowd was scanned. The Court observed that while the government has the responsibility to insure public order, similar conduct should be in compliance with the law and not inordinate. The Court emphasized that the right to peaceful assembly must be admired, and force should only be used in cases of violence or clear pitfalls to public safety.
Proportionality of Action The Court noted that any restrictions on the right to protest must be reasonable, and the use of force by the police must be commensurable to the trouble posed. It underscored that the authorities must insure that the abecedarian rights of citizens aren’t infringed upon in the name of maintaining public order.
legitimacy of Eviction The Court observed that the eviction of protestors from Ramlila Maidan was questionable. While the Delhi Police had acted under Section 144 CrPC to help unlawful assembly, the Court stressed that similar action should have been exercised with lesser caution, especially since the kick was peaceful, and there were no clear suggestions that the assembly would turn violent or disrupt public order.
Conclusion
The Ramlila Maidan Incident case represents a critical moment in India’s justice regarding the balance between public order and individual freedoms. The Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the right of citizens to peacefully protest and assemble, which is an essential part of a popular society. still, the judgment also made it clear that the right to protest is n’t absolute and can be confined under reasonable circumstances where there’s a genuine trouble to public order or safety.
