New Delhi: The Supreme Court Sunday orally observed that while there was no dispute over citizens’ right to protest, the manner in which demonstrations are conducted must comply with the Police Act, stressing that the exercise of fundamental rights cannot be divorced from the procedure prescribed by law.

“You have a right to protest, absolutely no quarrel on that, but the process in which you protest has to be within the Police Act,” a Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed during an urgent hearing into allegations of violations of its earlier directions concerning restrictions on public transport and the movement of people in Delhi ahead of a proposed protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

The observations came as senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioners, argued that Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) could not be invoked beyond the four-kilometre area covered by the prohibitory restrictions.

He contended that there could be no detention, obstruction to traffic or barricading outside the notified area and maintained that citizens should be permitted to hold peaceful protests even within the restricted zone, subject to public order.

Sibal submitted that a designated site was available for the demonstration and argued that citizens were entitled to exercise their right to protest without being required to make an application to the authorities.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, objected to the submissions.

Responding to the submissions, Justice Bagchi said the apex court would like to examine the extent to which the requirements of the Police Act were in sync with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression under Article 19.

The judge indicated that the petitioners could not claim that the right to protest operated beyond the framework of the Police Act, while reiterating that the process adopted for holding a demonstration must conform to the procedure prescribed by law.

However, Sibal argued that no police law could override the protection guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), subject to the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2), including those imposed in the interest of public order.

He also sought interim directions for restoration of internet services throughout the national capital and raised concerns over journalists being prevented from discharging their professional duties, both within and outside the affected area.

The hearing was part of the proceedings arising from contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s October 9 order on the operation of Metro and railway services and the movement of people in Delhi ahead of the proposed demonstration.

In its order passed Sunday, Justice Bagchi-led Bench directed the authorities to ensure that Metro trains and railway facilities function normally, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), and that internet services remain unhindered.

It further directed that free movement of people be ensured, subject to law and order and traffic regulations, and that barricades on roads be reviewed forthwith to minimise inconvenience to the public.

The apex court also made it clear that there should be no illegal detention, particularly in cases involving peaceful and unarmed gatherings, beyond the area where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in operation.

Taking note of the submissions of the Solicitor General that internet connectivity had been restored and all Metro stations were functional, the Supreme Court recorded the assurance that lawyers, journalists and other professionals would not be obstructed in discharging their professional duties.

It directed the alleged contemnors to file counter-affidavits and a compliance report by Tuesday, explaining their adherence to the directions issued October 9.

Friday, the Supreme Court had directed the authorities to reconsider restrictions on Metro and other railway services ahead of the proposed protest, clarifying that public transport could be regulated to maintain law and order but should not be prohibited outright. It had also called for adequate publicity of transport- decisions and the issuance of traffic advisories to minimise inconvenience to commuters.

The matter has been listed for further consideration October 13, along with other petitions seeking intervention in the proceedings.

Orissa POST – Read’s No.1 English Daily