The imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1973 in Gurugram has drawn attention again to this law, widely used to maintain public order especially during emergencies. In light of the escalating Covid-19 cases, Section 144 has been enforced, reflecting its wide-ranging use that extends to ordering Internet shutdowns and clamping down on telecommunication services.
Understanding Section 144 CrPC
Section 144 CrPC is a law that gives a magistrate in any Indian state or union territory the power to prohibit gatherings of four or more people in a designated area. This law is usually imposed in scenarios of anticipated nuisance or potential events that could pose a risk to human life or property. Significantly, these orders can be directed against specific individuals or the general populace.
Key Features of Section 144
An important aspect of Section 144 is its imposition of restrictions on handling or transporting any kind of weapon within the specified jurisdiction. Violation of these restrictions can lead to a maximum of three years of imprisonment. Moreover, the order under this section also mandates closure of public movement and educational institutions. Public meetings or rallies are also disallowed during the operational period of this order. It’s deemed an offense to hinder law enforcement agencies in dissolving any unlawful assembly. Additionally, Section 144 authorizes authorities to block internet access in the concerned region. The primary objective of Section 144 is to preserve peace and order in areas prone to disturbances that could disrupt regular life.
Duration of Section 144 Order
No Section 144 order can be in effect for more than two months. However, the state government can choose to extend it by another two months, up to a total duration of six months. Once normalcy is restored, the Section 144 levy can be withdrawn.
Distinction between Section 144 and Curfew
While Section 144 prohibits gatherings of more than four people in an area, a curfew requires people to remain indoors for a specified period. During a curfew, there are complete restrictions on traffic, and markets, schools, colleges, and offices remain closed. Only essential services can operate, and that too with prior notice.
Criticism Surrounding Section 144
Critics argue that Section 144 is overly broad and gives the magistrate absolute power, which can potentially be unjustly exercised. The immediate recourse against such an order is to apply for revision to the same magistrate. Aggrieved individuals can also approach the High Court by filing a writ petition if their fundamental rights are threatened. However, there are concerns that before the High Court’s intervention, the rights could already have been violated.
Court’s Perspective on Section 144
In the Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya case of 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that no democracy can exist if ‘public order’ is freely disturbed by a section of the citizens. Conversely, in another recent judgment, the court stated that Section 144 cannot be employed to limit citizens’ fundamental right to peaceful assembly or to prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance.
Moving Forward
While Section 144 serves as a valuable tool during emergencies, its wide executive powers coupled with minimal judicial oversight make it susceptible to misuse. Before invoking this section, magistrates should hold an inquiry and record the urgency of the matter. It is crucial to strike a balance between granting comprehensive powers to deal with emergent situations and protecting personal liberty and other freedoms promised to citizens under the Constitution’s fundamental rights.
