Farmers’ Protests: Right to Protest , Violence & Damages To Public Property

Make PDF

Content:

Right to Protest: Constitutional Provisions

• The word ‘protest’ is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution
• The right to protest peacefully is derived from the following articles in the Indian Constitution:
  • Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression; 
  • Article 19(1)(b) assures citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
• However, Articles 19(2) and 19(3) place reasonable restrictions on such freedom of speech. sovereignty and integrity of India
• Reasonable restrictions can be applied in case:
  • If the security of the state is in jeopardy;
  • If the friendly relationship we share with a neighbouring country is at stake;
  • If public order is disturbed;
  • If there is contempt of court;
  • If the sovereignty and integrity of India are threatened.
•  the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, or defamation or incitement to an offence
• Thus, Article 19 is meant for protection of freedoms of citizens against the actions of State only not Private Individuals
• It is critical to remember that all protests are legal only if they are non-violent and carried out with appropriate permissions. 
• Fundamental duties that are enshrined in the constitution require that the rule of law is followed and that public property is not destroyed.

SC judgements on Right to Protest 

• Supreme court in numerous cases has time and again interpreted the constitution preferring a political reading of Article 19 to include the implicit right of protest
• In the case of Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors.(2012), the Supreme Court had stated, “Citizens have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action.”

Other examples where the Supreme Court clarified the Right for Peaceful protest as a fundamental right are as follows:

• R.M. Lohia Vs. State of Bihar case
• Ramesh Thapar Vs. State of Madras
• Himmat Lal vs. Commissioner of Ahmedabad
• Babulal Parekh Vs. State of Maharashtra

Provisions against Damages to Public Property 

• Incidents of rioting, vandalism, and arson have been common during protests across India.
• The state governments have regularly resorted to stricter provisions of IPC to book the offenders in such cases despite the existence of a specific law to punish these offences.
• Many states felt that an agitation invariably takes a violent turn because of the wide coverage by TV channels with news bulletins flashing the faces of agitators while in the act of destruction of public property. 
• A bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat, before constituting the Thomas and Nariman committees, had said: “The offenders feel, as is shown in the TV channels, that they have done something very heroic or laudable because when the TV cameras focus on them, they show their beaming faces.”

SC rulings on Recovery of Damages 

• In 2007, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance on the issue of public and private properties’ destruction and set up two committees to suggest changes to the law.
• The Committees were headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice K T Thomas and senior advocate Fali Nariman.
• In 2009, in the case of In Re: Destruction of Public & Private Properties v State of AP and Ors, the Supreme Court issued guidelines based on the recommendations of the two expert Committees.
• Apart from holding rioters liable and imposing costs, the court also issued guidelines including:
  •  directing High Courts to order suo motu action, and 
  • to set up a machinery to investigate the damage caused and award compensation wherever mass destruction to property takes place due to protests.

Make PDF