In the recent judgment, the Bombay high court quashed an order passes against people to prohibit protests and demonstrations in the wake of the nationwide disturbance against CAA under section 144 of code of criminal procedure, 1908.
Earlier, the division bench gave a verdict against the petition filed by an individual, whose request was to hold a peaceful demonstration at old idgahmaidan at majalgaon, declining by citing operation of section 144 which was passed by the additional district judge.
(Explanation of section 144 of code of criminal procedure, 1908 empowers an executive to pass an order against nuisance or apprehends danger by the unlawful assembly.)
The court noted that the real purpose of passing an order under section 144 was not only to curb multiple agitations but o silence the anti-CAA protestors. This order has also prevented sloganeering, singing, beating drums, etc.
The language propounded in section 144 is against everybody but in reality, the order is against persons who want to agitate and protest against CAA.
At present, such agitation is going everywhere & no whisper of agitation of other nature in the region, in this way it tends to be said that there was no decency and the order was not made genuinely.
CAN’T BE LABELLED TRAITORS OR ANTI NATIONALS
The court expressed in its recent judgment that such persons who are only opposing on law can’t be called traitors and anti-nationals, it can be only said an act of protest against the government for the reason of CAA. The judges recalled that India's independence was won by protest only which was against British rule. If the persons who are agitating believe that it is against their right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution, they have the right to express their feelings as provided under article 19 of the constitution. It is very unfortunate to see that people are agitating against their own government but only on that ground, the agitation cannot be suppressed.
We live in a democratic republic and our constitution has given us the rule of law not the rule of the majority. When such an act is made people of a particular religion may feel that it is against their interest and such acts need to be opposed. It is the matter of their perception and belief and the court cannot go into the merits of that perception or belief. The court is only bound to see whether these persons have the right to agitate, oppose the law or not.
ADMINISTRATION MUST BE SENSITIZED ABOUT THE HUMAN RIGHTS
On this note, the court said that the administrators who are vested with powers to maintain law and order need to be sensitized by imparting proper training on human rights incorporated as a fundamental right under the constitution of India. The officers need to keep in mind that where citizens believe that particular act is an attack on their rights which were achieved by their struggle on freedom and when it is against the provisions of the constitution which citizens have given to themselves, they are bound to defend that right.
CONCLUSION
Many people of all the religions and all the communities are agitating to oppose the CAA. In preamble there is a word fraternity. The circumstances that the persons of other communities and religions are supporting the minority community show that we have achieved the fraternity to a great extent. Doing against this will hurt the fraternity and will create danger to the unity of the country. Hence order passed under section 144 to prevent CAA protest was illegal.
Author:
Leave a Comment
Previous Comments