Constitution envisages right to protest but with certain duties: Supreme Court dismisses review petition against verdict on Shaheen Bagh protests

The Supreme Court of India has dismissed the review petition challenging its October 2020 verdict on Shaheen Bagh protests reiterating its stand that prolonged protests cannot be at the cost of continued occupation of public spaces affecting the rights of others (Kaniz Fatima vs Commissioner of Police)..A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari rejected the review plea filed by twelve individuals seeking a review of its October, 2020, judgment which had held that public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely..The bench ruled that "right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere."."Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties. The right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public place affecting rights of others," Supreme Court held February 9, 2021..The October ruling came in the context of the protests held against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act or CAA at South Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh area..The protests started on December 15, 2019 and ended only after the lockdown imposed by the Central government on March 24 last year in order to curb the spread of Covid-19 came into force. The protests threw traffic out of gear in Shaheen Bagh, prompting one Amit Sahni, a resident of Delhi, to file a public interest litigation (PIL) before the apex court, resulting in the October 7 decision.."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," Supreme Court had said in its October 2020 judgment..The review petition under Article 137 of the Constitution had raised five grounds to challenge the October order. The main ground for review was the vast powers the judgment conferred on police, leaving scope for its abuse.The petitioners had submitted that “such observations may prove to be a license in the hands of the police to commit atrocities on legitimate voice of protest, especially protesters coming from vulnerable sections of the social strata.”.The review petitioners had submitted that the judgment of the top court would lead to a situation where the administration would never engage in dialogue with protesters but would instead take action against them including their prosecution.