CAA Protests: Court bound to see that people have a right to agitate, says Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Thursday held that persons peacefully protesting against any particular law cannot be called as traitors or anti-nationals. The observation was made while granting permission for the conduct of an indefinite protest against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 in the Beed district of Maharashtra..As stated in the order passed by the Division Bench of Justices MG Sewlikar and TV Nalaawade,.... this Court is expected to consider the right of such persons to start agitation in a peaceful way. This Court wants to express that such persons cannot be called as traitors, anti-nationals only because they want to oppose one law. It will be act of protest and only against the Government for the reason of CAA.Bombay High Court.The Court added that "If the persons agitating believe that it is against the ‘equality’ provided under Article 14, they have the right to express their feelings as provided under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.".In such cases, the High Court opined that it is the Court's duty to see that people have a right to agitate and oppose a law in a democratic country. As recorded in the order,."When we are considering the proceeding like present one, we must keep in mind that we are a democratic republic country and our constitution has given us rule of law and not rule of majority. When such act is made, some people may be of a particular religion like Muslims may feel that it is against their interest and such act needs to be opposed. It is a matter of their perception and belief and the Court cannot go into the merits of that perception or belief. The Courts are bound to see whether these persons have right to agitate, oppose the law."Bombay High Court.The Bench proceeded to note that it is not up to the Court to ascertain whether the exercise of fundamental rights would create a law and order problem. Rather, "In such cases, it is the duty of the Government to approach such persons, have talk with them and try to convince them.".The Bench also emphasised that the State bureaucracy must be more sensitive in such matters, pointing out that, when citizens who believe that particular act is an attack on their rights, they are bound to defend that right. Further that, "If they are not allowed to do so, the possibility of use of force is always there and the result will be violence, chaos, disorder and ultimately the danger to the unity of this country.".The Court went on to highlight that India has a long history of peaceful agitations, going back to the age of British Rule. In this backdrop, the judges commented, "It can be said that it is unfortunate but the people are required to agitate against their own Government now but only on that ground the agitation cannot be suppressed.".In view of these observations, the High Court quashed orders to the contrary passed by an Additional District Magistrate and the Police, which had denied permission to conduct the protests. Inter alia, the Bench took critical note that the lower Court's order appeared to have targeted anti-CAA protests in particular. In this regard, the High Court order states, ."It can be said that though the order on face appears to be against everybody, in reality the order is against persons who want to agitate, to protest against CAA. At present such agitations are going on everywhere and there was no whisper of agitations of other nature in this region. Thus, it can be said that there was no fairness and the order was not made honestly.".The Bench proceeded to issue directions to the State to ensure that the petitioner and his companions were allowed to hold peaceful demonstrations and agitations for indefinite period. .The Court further recorded that the protests are to be carried out at the Old Idgah Maidan after obtaining the necessary permission since it is a Wakf property..Notably, the judge has stated that it is not commenting on the CAA itself, given that it is pending consideration before the Supreme Court, and since the issue did not require consideration to decide on the reliefs sought by the petitioners before it. .[Read the order here]