Supreme Court refuses to review order on Shaheen Bagh protests

The Supreme Court refused to rethink its judgment that the Shaheen Bagh protests, by a collective of moms, youngsters and senior residents, in opposition to the Citizenship Amendment Act was inconvenient for commuters.

“The right to protest cannot be any time 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,” a three-judge Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul declined the review petitions.

The review listening to held within the judges’ chambers by circulation was printed on Saturday.

The original judgment of October 7 last year declared the demonstrations and street blockades within the Shaheen Bagh space of the nationwide capital as “unacceptable”.

‘No error’

The Review Bench, which comprised the identical judges who delivered the unique judgment, mentioned they didn’t discover any “error apparent warranting reconsideration” of their verdict.

“We have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements and recorded our opinion that the constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties,” the review order reasoned.

On October 7, the court docket had concluded that protesters ought to specific their dissent solely in designated areas chosen by the administration. Right to dissent shouldn’t hamper proper of motion of the general public. Protests shouldn’t grow to be a nuisance.

Though the judgment had upheld the right to peaceful protest in opposition to a regulation, it unequivocally made it clear that public methods and public areas can’t be occupied, and that too indefinitely.

Fundamental rights don’t dwell in isolation. The proper of the protester has to be balanced with the appropriate of the commuter. They have to co-exist in mutual respect, the court docket had defined in its judgment.

In the review petition, Kazi Fatima and 11 others mentioned the protesters weren’t even heard by the court docket. The petitioners requested how the court docket might limit expressions of dissent to sure designated areas.

“Restricting protests to designated areas upsets the very concept of dissent and protests… Protests are the only way for citizens in a democracy to show their dissent. Curb on this freedom leaves citizens with no report to voice their concerns,” the review petition had mentioned.

The review petitioners had referred to how the “police have in the recent past acted arbitrarily by beating students and protesters”.

The commentary made by the court docket within the judgment “clothes the police with an arbitrary discretion to attack any peaceful protesters”.

“This would lead to a situation wherein the administration would never engage in dialogue with protesters, but instead take action against them, including their prosecution,” the review petition had argued.