PIL in Supreme Court seeks ban on agitations against or for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

A PIL has been moved in the Supreme Court, seeking a direction to make strict rules and form guidelines against carrying out agitations and processions in favour of or against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) 2019..It further seeks a ban on electronic telecommunications, through the internet, Facebook, WhatsApp, telegram, posters, flex banners or any other electronic transfer or communication regarding the anti-CAA campaign throughout India..The plea has been filed by the Managing Trustee of the Hindu Dharma Parishad, through Advocate Narender Kumar Verma..It has been submitted, inter alia, by the petitioner that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has been implemented in the interest of the nation, to take strong action against terrorists and anti-social elements..Since the Bill was already passed by the parliament, there are no grounds for opposing the same by way of protests, states the petition. The petition states,.“... some state and national political parties and some anti-social organizations with the help of foreign hands are inducing the innocent people by paying money and briyani and encouraging them to do agitation and riot all over India.”PIL petitioner.The petition further states that people who have crossed the Indian boundaries, especially from the north eastern states and are illegal migrants, have spoiled the culture of those states..Moreover, it is alleged that while some states in India have opposed of the Act and is resisting its implementation, the same is being done for political gain..It is argued that state Governments have the bounden duty to implement laws passed in Parliament. In this regard, the petition also relies on the “Doctrine of Occupied field” which denotes that once the Parliament has enacted any laws in a particular matter, the state Legislature has no power to enact another law over the same matter..The plea also refers to instances where protests have turn violent, necessitating the police to respond with force, to argue that the same denotes a threat to the sovereignty of the country.