Section 144: Consistently respecting people's right to protest, State Govt to Karnataka HC

In the matter pertaining to the legality of the Section 144 order that was imposed in Bangalore on December 18, the Karnataka High Court today granted time to the petitioners to file their rejoinder to the objections tendered by the state government.In its statement of objections filed against the petition, the state government has contended that it has been consistently respecting and supporting the people’s right to peacefully protest. This is evident from the fact that since the Section 144 order was lifted, permissions for nine protests have been granted, the statement of objections notes..When the matter was taken up today, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar asked Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi how many permissions were granted after the imposition on Section 144, which ended within 66 hours of its initiation.As per the objections filed on behalf of the state, since the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) are not absolute rights, they could be subject to reasonable restrictions as and when the situation demands. In this regard, it was stated,."In short, Section 144 is a provision that empowers the jurisdictional officer to impose restrictions that are required to meet an emergent situation in order to maintain law and order and prevent the disturbance of peace and danger to human life and health."Objections filed by AG.Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court decision in Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, where the Apex Court upheld the validity of Section 144. In that case, the Court held that "the gist of the action under Section 144 is the urgency of the situation, its efficacy in the likelihood of being able to prevent harmful occurrences”..AG Navadgi further argued that Section 144 only placed temporary restrictions on the fundamental rights of the petitioners in order to ensure the safety of the public. He also stated that communications of the Divisional Deputy Commissioners were issued on the basis of various intelligence reports, which indicated that certain antisocial persons and organizations were planning to infiltrate the otherwise peaceful protests. The objections also specifically state that there was clear evidence showing that there was an "imminent possibility of a breach of peace across the State". This was the reason for the issuance of orders under Section 144 by the DG and IG, the objections read.The state government also averred that it was consistently permitting persons to conduct peaceful protests both against and in favour of the recently enacted Citizenship Amendment Act. The state has always respected the rights of the people, it added..On whether the Commissioner of Police was vested with jurisdiction to issue the impugned order under Section 144, AG Navadgi referred to the notifications issued by the state government on July 6, 1974, when the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City was appointed as an Executive Magistrate in the Bangalore Metropolitan area. Regarding the petitioner's contention of non-application of mind, the state averred,."The impugned order itself refers to the various communications, discusses the potential threat to public property and life, and specifically states that the impugned order has been issued to prevent incidents that could affect the public peace and welfare and for the maintenance of law and order. The order also states that certain political organizations have issued provocative statements on the underlying issue through social media and that information has been received regarding the call for an all-India bandh. The order further states that, given the information that had been received, there was a likelihood of the protests turning severe and disrupting public order."Objections filed by the AG.On the contention of violation of natural justice principles, the objections pointed out that the very scheme of Section 144 itself is such that it contemplates the passing of an order without having to hear the person/persons against whom the order is to be directed.."Therefore, an order under section 144 can be passed without hearing the aggrieved party/parties since the very provision is intended to meet an exigency, and in such circumstances, it would not be feasible or practicable to hear the aggrieved parties before passing of an order thereunder."Objections by AG.The government also submitted that persons could always apply/reapply for permission after the expiration of the order under Section 144, in which case their applications would be considered afresh in accordance with law.The matter is next listed on February 12. [Read the Objections here] .While hearing the batch of petitions seeking the quashing of the imposition of Section 144 in Bangalore, the Karnataka High Court posed a volley of questions to the state government. Justice Oka had asked the government counsel,"Can state go under the assumption that every protest will disturb the peace?Are you (state) going to ban each and every protest? How can you cancel permission of a previously granted order?”[Read the objections filed by the state government]