The HC quashed Section 144 Order that prohibited protests and demonstrations against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
India Tomorrow
MUMBAI, FEBRUARY 15— In what could be seen as snub to police authorities imposing Section 144 to suppress anti-CAA protests in Maharashtra and other parts of the country, the Bombay High Court has quashed an order passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Beed district authorities to prohibit protests and demonstrations against the controversial citizenship law.
The Aurangabad bench of the High Court comprising Justices TV Nalawade and MG Sewlikar gave the verdict on Thursday in a petition filed by one Iftekhar Zakee Shaikh, whose request to hold peaceful demonstrations at old Idgah Maidan at Majalgaon in District Beed was declined citing operation of a Section 144 order passed by Additional District Magistrate of Beed, reports LiveLaw.in.
The bench said: “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 HC categorically said that persons who oppose the CAA cannot be termed as traitors or anti-nationals, and that their right for peaceful protests must be considered.
“The submissions made show that there will be no question of disobedience of provisions of CAA by such agitation. Thus, 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,” said the bench.
On Thursday, the Karnataka High Court had described as “illegal” the prohibitory orders imposed in Bengaluru under Section 144 on December 18 in view of the anti-CAA protest. The HC also said that these orders “cannot stand scrutiny of law”.
ALSO READ: Imposition of Section 144 ahead of Anti-CAA Protest in Bengaluru in Dec Was Illegal: HC
Since CAA was passed by the Parliament on December 11 last year, there have been massive nationwide protests against this law and central government’s plans for conducting exercise for National Population Register (NPR) and National Register of Citizens (NRC). Except a few protests in some of the BJP-ruled states, all anti-CAA protests have been completely peaceful. During anti-CAA protests in Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and Assam, more than 30 people were killed, most of them in police firing – 23 of them were killed in UP alone. The Yogi Adityanath government of UP had clamped Section 144 in several districts of the state on December 19-20 when the protest demonstrations were taken out.
During the Delhi election campaigns earlier this month, several BJP leaders had aggressively targeted the anti-CAA protests of Shaheen Bagh and Jamia Millia. During their speeches, some of them had even made provocative and inflammatory remarks over the protests. Union Minister Anurag Thakur had raised the slogan “Desh Ke Gaddaron Ko, Goli Maro Sa**n Ko”, inviting gag orders from the Election Commission.
Constitution has given us Rule of Law and Not Rule of Majority: HC
In its 10-page order, the Bombay HC made observations on various things like Rule of Law Vs Rule of Majority and the Khilafat Movement.
“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. If the Court finds that it is part of their fundamental right, it is not open to the Court to ascertain whether the exercise of such right will create law and order problem. That is the problem of a political government. In such cases, it is the duty of the Government to approach such persons, have talk with them and try to convince them.”
Countering the argument of the public prosecutor that CAA has nothing to do with Indian Muslims and so they should not protest against it, the High Court mentioned the Khilafat Movement which was launched by Mahatma Gandhi.
“When such matter comes before the Court, the Court also cannot go with the presumption that only particular community or religion has interest in opposing such law. In the aforesaid order of Additional District Magistrate itself, it is mentioned that persons of all religions have started the agitation. Thus, many persons of all the communities may feel that it is against the interest of mankind, humanity or the basic human values. We need to remember the constitutional and legal history when we consider the provisions of constitution. We need to keep in mind the freedom struggle and the causes which were taken up by the freedom fighters. In the British period there was ‘Khilafat Movement’ to support the authority of Sultan of Ottoman to act as Khalif of Islam. That agitation was against the Britishers who were affecting the authority of Khalif but freedom fighters had taken up that cause. Thus when no interest of Indian Muslims were affected due to the act of british against that Sultan the agitation was started by our ancestors. This agitation was led by Mahatma Gandhi and it was for the purpose of expressing solidarity and support to the cause of Muslims of that country. Thus the agitation can be for cause of foreigners also.”
