People are seeing violent demonstrations as an “appendage of Indian democracy”, rules Apex Court

The Supreme Court of India has held that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution. However, the court has also clarified that this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, as well as public order..The incident and the allegation.The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justices AK Sikri and RK Agrawal in a petition filed by migrants of the State of Jammu & Kashmir..The petitioners are office bearers of the Jammu & Kashmir Panthers Party which has been espousing the cause of the Jammu migrants (about 2,200 families) who were forced to leave their homes due to terrorist attacks..The allegation was that they had planned to take out a peaceful protest march up to Delhi. However, when they neared Katra in Jammu & Kashmir, the police beat up and manhandled the petitioners..The petitioners thereafter, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court contending the violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also sought criminal action against the erring officials, as well as compensation for the injuries suffered at the hands of the police. There was also a prayer for a special investigation into the matter..An elucidation of Protester Rights.In the final judgment, the Supreme Court held that the right to hold a peaceful protest is a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution..“…holding peaceful demonstration in order to air their grievances and to see that their voice is heard in the relevant quarters is the right of the people. Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this country and, thus, this provision ensures that the petitioners could raise slogans, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive language…..It hardly needs elaboration that a distinguishing feature of any democracy is the space offered for legitimate dissent. One cherished and valuable aspect of political life in India is a tradition to express grievances through direct action or peaceful protest. Organised, non-violent protest marches were a key weapon in the struggle for independence, and the right to peaceful protest is now recognised as a fundamental right in the Constitution…”.However, the court made it clear that this right was subject to “reasonable restrictions”..The ‘peaceful’ march that wasn’t.The court noted that in the present case, it was the petitioners who took the law into their hands by turning their peaceful agitation into a violent one, and in the process becoming unruly and pelting stones at the police..However, the police too were guilty of excess..“In the process, they continued their lathi charge. They continued to beat up all the three petitioners even after overpowering them. They had virtually apprehended these petitioners making them immobile. However, their attack on these petitioners continued even thereafter when it was not at all needed.”.The Judgment, and enumeration of Compensation Principles.The court proceeded to award compensation from Rs. 1 lakh to 2 lakh to the petitioners while observing that the petitioners were not completely free of blame..The court also held that in curbing such violence or dispersing unlawful assemblies, police have to accomplish their task with utmost care as law and order needs to be restored but it should also be ensured that “unnecessary force” is not used..In this context it reiterated the principles relating to awarding compensation for breach of fundamental rights..First, it is clear that a violation of fundamental rights due to police misconduct can give rise to a liability under public law, apart from criminal and tort law..Secondly, that pecuniary compensation can be awarded for such a violation of fundamental rights..Thirdly, it is the State that is held liable and, therefore, the compensation is borne by the State and not the individual police officers found guilty of misconduct..Fourthly, this Court has held that the standard of proof required for proving police misconduct such as brutality, torture and custodial violence and for holding the State accountable for the same, is high. It is only for patent and incontrovertible violation of fundamental rights that such remedy can be made available..Fifthly, the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to cases of fundamental rights violation and hence cannot be used as a defence in public law.”.“General remarks”.Interestingly, the court did not shy away from making some general remarks with regard to the manner in which demonstrations take place today..“Recent happenings show an unfortunate trend where such demonstrations and protests are on increase. There are all kinds of protests: on social issues, on political issues and on demands of various sections of the society of varied kinds. .It is also becoming a common ground that religious, ethnic, regional language, caste and class divisions are frequently exploited to foment violence whenever mass demonstrations or dharnas etc take place. It is unfortunate that more often than not, such protestors take to hooliganism, vandalism and even destroy public / private property. In the process, when police tries to control, the protestors/mob violently target policemen as well. .Unruly groups and violent demonstrations are so common that people have become to see them as an appendage of Indian democracy…”.It also pointed at instances in Kashmir where separatist groups have provoked violence..“In Kashmir itself there have been numerous instances where separatist groups have provoked violence. In this scenario, task of the police and law enforcing agencies becomes more difficult and delicate. In curbing such violence or dispersing unlawful assemblies, police has to accomplish its task with utmost care, deftness and precision. .Thus, on the one hand, law and order needs to be restored and at the same time, it is also to be ensured that unnecessary force or the force beyond what is absolutely essential is not used. Policemen are required to undergo special training to deal with these situations.”.Read full judgment below: