Section 144 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a law that has garnered attention due to recent events, empowers a magistrate in any state or union territory in India to pass an order prohibiting the gathering of four or more people in a specific area. This particular section is invoked in urgent cases of nuisance or if there is apprehended danger of an event that can potentially cause trouble or damage to human life or property. The order can be passed against a single individual or the general public.
Key Features of Section 144 CrPC
Section 144 imposes restrictions on handling or transporting any kind of weapon within the specified jurisdiction, with a potential penalty of up to three years imprisonment for violation. According to orders under this section, public movement and educational institutions are required to be restricted. Moreover, it places a complete ban on public meetings or rallies during its period of operation. Furthermore, it deems obstructing law enforcement agencies from disbanding an unlawful assembly as a punishable offense. It also authorizes authorities to block internet access in the region.
Duration and Purpose of Section 144 Order
An order under Section 144 cannot remain in force for more than two months, however, the state government can choose to extend it for another two months, with the maximum period extendable to six months. The main objective of Section 144 is to maintain peace and order in areas where disruptions could occur, adversely affecting regular life. Once the situation becomes normal, Section 144 can be withdrawn.
Difference Between Section 144 and Curfew
Section 144 and a curfew differ primarily in their extent of restrictions. While Section 144 prohibits the gathering of four or more people in an area, a curfew instructs people to stay indoors for a specified period. Moreover, during a curfew, a complete restriction is placed on traffic and all markets, schools, colleges, offices are required to be closed, with only essential services being allowed.
Criticisms Associated with Section 144
Critics point out that Section 144 offers absolute power to a magistrate which could potentially be misused. They argue against the effectiveness of filing a revision application as the immediate remedy against such an order. Concerns are also raised about infringement of rights and the difficulty in justifying the imposition of prohibitive orders over a large area, since security situations differ vastly from location to location.
Past Rulings on Section 144
In previous cases, the Supreme Court held the view that “no democracy can exist if ‘public order’ is freely allowed to be disturbed”. It upheld the constitutionality of the law under the premise that the restrictions enforced through Section 144 are covered under the “reasonable restrictions” to the fundamental rights as per Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In 2012, the court critiqued the use of Section 144 against a sleeping crowd and held it’s usability only in dire circumstances for maintaining public peace.
Addressing the Controversies Surrounding Section 144
Section 144, while seen as a useful tool to manage emergencies, has been criticized for its potential misuse due to lack of narrow executive powers and limited judicial oversight. To address these issues, it is suggested that the Magistrate should conduct an enquiry and record the necessity of the matter before proceeding under this section, creating a balance between emergent situations and protection of citizen liberties under the Constitution.