The liberty of citizens is sacrosanct and cannot be curtailed merely because they have participated in public protests, observed the Kerala High Court recently [Sharmina A v Sub-Divisional Magistrate & ors]..Justice VG Arun made the observation while quashing an order that directed a woman to execute a bond of ₹50,000, along with sureties, to maintain peace for one year. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) had cited the woman's participation in public protests and sloganeering activities to issue this order. The Court, however, pointed out that such activities would not amount to a violation of reasonable restrictions to free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. The Court added that these activities cannot be cited as grounds to justify restrictions on a citizen's freedom by requiring the execution of a bond to prevent a breach of peace under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)."The liberty of a citizen being sacrosanct, cannot be curtailed in a casual manner, by referring to crimes relating to public demonstrations. Mere participation in demonstrations, holding of banners or shouting slogans, cannot be perceived as activities in violation of the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19," the Court held..The judge also noted that the order imposing the bond lacked any independent assessment by the magistrate on why it was necessary to curtail the woman's liberty. "In the case at hand, the impugned order does not even indicate the factors that had prompted the Magistrate to form an opinion that, unless prevented, activities of the petitioner will result in breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity," the Court found.The Court emphasised that preventive measures under the BNSS must be resorted to only if there is an imminent and substantial threat to public order..The Court proceeded to quash the bond execution order issued by the SDM at Perinthalmanna against one, Sharmina A (petitioner). The SDM had issued the order based on a report from the Kolathur Police Station. The police had cited the 24-year-old petitioner's involvement in multiple cases, including those relating to a public procession commemorating the death anniversary of a Maoist activist, a demonstration that disrupted traffic where slogans such as 'In the land of Babari, Justice is only Masjid' were raised and a public protest against a raid by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Pandikkad.These activities, the police claimed, posed a threat to public tranquility..Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the SDM's order requiring her to execute a bond to maintain peace violated her fundamental rights.Her counsel argued that participation in protests and expressing dissent are fundamental rights protected under Article 19 of the Constitution. The State countered that the repeated involvement of the petitioner in disruptive activities justified the SDM's order..The Court, however, found that the SDM had merely relied on a police report without forming an independent opinion. It proceeded to allow the petition and quash the SDM’s order and all subsequent proceedings..The petitioner was represented by advocates Rizwana AA and Aqib Sohail PS.Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha MK appeared for the State..[Read Order]
The liberty of citizens is sacrosanct and cannot be curtailed merely because they have participated in public protests, observed the Kerala High Court recently [Sharmina A v Sub-Divisional Magistrate & ors]..Justice VG Arun made the observation while quashing an order that directed a woman to execute a bond of ₹50,000, along with sureties, to maintain peace for one year. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) had cited the woman's participation in public protests and sloganeering activities to issue this order. The Court, however, pointed out that such activities would not amount to a violation of reasonable restrictions to free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. The Court added that these activities cannot be cited as grounds to justify restrictions on a citizen's freedom by requiring the execution of a bond to prevent a breach of peace under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)."The liberty of a citizen being sacrosanct, cannot be curtailed in a casual manner, by referring to crimes relating to public demonstrations. Mere participation in demonstrations, holding of banners or shouting slogans, cannot be perceived as activities in violation of the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19," the Court held..The judge also noted that the order imposing the bond lacked any independent assessment by the magistrate on why it was necessary to curtail the woman's liberty. "In the case at hand, the impugned order does not even indicate the factors that had prompted the Magistrate to form an opinion that, unless prevented, activities of the petitioner will result in breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity," the Court found.The Court emphasised that preventive measures under the BNSS must be resorted to only if there is an imminent and substantial threat to public order..The Court proceeded to quash the bond execution order issued by the SDM at Perinthalmanna against one, Sharmina A (petitioner). The SDM had issued the order based on a report from the Kolathur Police Station. The police had cited the 24-year-old petitioner's involvement in multiple cases, including those relating to a public procession commemorating the death anniversary of a Maoist activist, a demonstration that disrupted traffic where slogans such as 'In the land of Babari, Justice is only Masjid' were raised and a public protest against a raid by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Pandikkad.These activities, the police claimed, posed a threat to public tranquility..Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the SDM's order requiring her to execute a bond to maintain peace violated her fundamental rights.Her counsel argued that participation in protests and expressing dissent are fundamental rights protected under Article 19 of the Constitution. The State countered that the repeated involvement of the petitioner in disruptive activities justified the SDM's order..The Court, however, found that the SDM had merely relied on a police report without forming an independent opinion. It proceeded to allow the petition and quash the SDM’s order and all subsequent proceedings..The petitioner was represented by advocates Rizwana AA and Aqib Sohail PS.Senior Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha MK appeared for the State..[Read Order]
