Peaceful protest is fundamental right, but authorities must act if it turns violent: HC

The court observed, “It is well settled that, in a democracy, citizens have a fundamental right to assemble and express their views through peaceful protest. Such a right ought not to be interfered with by the authorities. However, where a protest ceases to be peaceful, turns violent, or poses a threat to public safety, the competent authorities are duty-bound to take appropriate preventive and remedial measures in accordance with law to ensure the maintenance of public peace, order, and security.”

The Bench said, “We hope and trust that Punjab and Haryana, as well as Chandigarh, shall act with due sensitivity and responsibility and ensure that no untoward incident is permitted to occur. We expect that all necessary preventive and remedial measures, as warranted in law, shall be taken for the protection of the life, liberty, and security of the public at large in accordance with law.”

The Bench has listed the matter for August 20, by when the respective status reports in this regard are to be filed by Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh.

The PIL was taken up out of turn on special mentioning by the petitioner, who is a practising advocate of the High Court.

At the outset, on the oral request of senior counsel representing the petitioner, the court directed that the Haryana Home Secretary be impleaded as respondent in the PIL and directed the Registry to amend the memo of parties accordingly.

Through his counsel senior advocate RS Khosla, Singla submitted that such protests often lead to grave law-and-order situations in which the public at large is made to suffer for no fault on its part.

The petition stated that Quami Insaf Morcha had given a nationwide call to gherao the Punjab Governor seeking release of Bandi Singhs and that news reports had mentioned that various religious leaders would also join the call and participate in the morcha. It further stated that the morcha had announced that a large number of people would arrive in Chandigarh on August 15 to surround the Governor’s House.

Through Khosla, the petitioner submitted that the right to assemble could not supersede the wider public’s right to safety, life and free passage on public thoroughfares. The petition sought directions to protest organisers, unions and groups to refrain from holding demonstrations without prior administrative clearance and to abstain from violence, vandalism or forcible road blockades.

The petitioner also sought directions to the Chandigarh Administration and police, as well as Punjab, to maintain open transit and emergency corridors, disperse unsanctioned blockades and hold violent or non-compliant organisers strictly accountable under law.

Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the UT Administration, Salil Sabhlok, Senior DAG, appearing for Punjab, and Sourabh Goel, Additional Advocate General, appearing for Haryana, told the court that the concerned authorities were aware of the threat perception and that adequate deployment of police personnel would be made to check any untoward incident.