Mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in self-ruled democracy: SC in Shaheen Bagh verdict

While acknowledging that India as we know it today is a result of the protests during the freedom struggle, the Supreme Court today held that the mode and manner of dissent against the colonial rule cannot be equated with protests akin to the Shaheen Bagh demonstration seen earlier this year..The judgment delivered today by a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari reads,."India, as we know it today, traces its foundation back to when the seeds of protest during our freedom struggle were sown deep, to eventually flower into a democracy. What must be kept in mind, however, is that the erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy."Supreme Court.[Breaking] Shaheen Bagh protests: "Public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely", Supreme Court.While the Constitution of India gives citizens the right to protest, the same is subject to reasonable restrictions and has corresponding duties, the Court reiterated..At the same time, the Court said, the rights of an individual or a class of people do not exist in silos and have to be balanced with the existing and contrasting rights of others..The Court made these observations while considering the question of balancing the right to protest against other public rights in the backdrop of the Shaheen Bagh protests held in Delhi against the Citizenship Amendment Act earlier this year.Stating that protests cannot go on indefinitely in a manner that causes obstruction to others, the Court observed,"....we have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.".The protests at Shaheen Bagh, the Court observed, had started as a sit-in protest demonstration by women. However, with the passage of time, the protest became leaderless, it noted. The judgment reads,."It appeared that an absence of leadership guiding the protest and the presence of various groups of protesters had resulted in many influencers who were acting possibly at cross-purposes with each other. Thus, the Shaheen Bagh protest perhaps no longer remained the sole and empowering voice of women, who also appeared to no longer have the ability to call off the protest themselves.".It was only on account of the COVID-19 pandemic that the protest site was ultimately cleared out. While stating that the reliefs in the matter have worked themselves out on account of this fact, the Court proceeded to make certain observations for the sake of clarity, given the wider ramifications of the case..Having stressed on the importance of dissent for a healthy democracy, the Court proceeded to say that demonstrations expressing dissent must be in designated places alone or they lead to causing inconvenience to the public at large.."Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters."Supreme Court.The Bench said that it cannot accept the submission that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.."We have, thus, no hesitation in concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.".It was also noted that the administration should have acted to clear the protest site rather than hide behind court orders."In what manner the administration should act is their responsibility and they should not hide behind the court orders or seek support therefrom for carrying out their administrative functions. The courts adjudicate the legality of the actions and are not meant to give shoulder to the administration to fire their guns from. Unfortunately, despite a lapse of a considerable period of time, there was neither any negotiations nor any action by the administration, thus warranting our intervention."The Delhi High Court was also criticised for dismissing a petition seeking similar reliefs, with the Apex Court noting that it should have monitored the situation..The scope of mobilising protests in the digital age was also touched upon, with the Court highlighting the downside to the same.."The ability to scale up quickly, for example, using digital infrastructure has empowered movements to embrace their often-leaderless aspirations and evade usual restrictions of censorship; however, the flip side to this is that social media channels are often fraught with danger and can lead to the creation of highly polarised environments, which often see parallel conversations running with no constructive outcome evident. Both these scenarios were witnessed in Shaheen Bagh, which started out as a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, gained momentum across cities to become a movement of solidarity for the women and their cause, but came with its fair share of chinks..."Supreme Court.The judgment concludes with the Court expressing hope that such a situation should be avoided in the future.."We only hope that such a situation does not arise in the future and protests are subject to the legal position as enunciated above, with some sympathy and dialogue, but are not permitted to get out of hand.".Read Judgment: