The recent surge in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act across several states has led to the imposition of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by numerous state governments. This measure aims to suppress these protests and prevent further escalation.
Understanding Section 144 of CrPC
Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a legal tool often used to bar gatherings of four or more individuals. It also holds the authority to instruct mobile network providers to block voice, SMS, or Internet communications within specific geographical scopes.
This provision grants various magistrates, including district magistrates, sub-divisional magistrates, and others specifically empowered by the state government, the power to issue orders to prevent potential threats or nuisances. These orders can be directed towards an individual, people living in a certain area, or the public frequenting or visiting a specific location.
Nevertheless, any order passed under Section 144 cannot be active for more than two months from the date of its issuance. Although the state government can extend this duration, it cannot exceed a total of six months.
Challenges related to Section 144
The broad and ambiguous definition of ‘apprehended danger or nuisance’ gives a magistrate a considerable amount of power. The immediate countering method against such an order is a revision application submitted to the magistrate himself.
If an individual feels that his fundamental rights are compromised, he can approach the High Court by filing a writ petition (article 226). However, this could be a time-consuming process.
| Year | Case | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| 1967 | Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya case | Supreme Court stated, “no democracy can exist if ‘public order’ is freely allowed to be disturbed by a section of the citizens”. |
| 1970 | Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate case | Upheld the constitutionality of section 144 under Chief Justice of India M Hidayatullah’s leadership. “Law may be abused” is no reason to strike it down. |
| 2012 | Imposition of Section 144 against a sleeping crowd in Ramlila Maidan | Supreme Court criticised the government, stating that such a provision should only be used in dire circumstances for maintaining public peace. |
The Courts and Section 144
The courts have had various interpretations and rulings on Section 144 over the years. In 1967, during the Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya case, the Supreme Court affirmed that no democracy can exist if a section of the citizens is freely permitted to disrupt ‘public order’.
In the Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate case (1970), a seven-judge bench led by then Chief Justice of India M Hidayatullah maintained the constitutionality of section 144. The court stated that just because “law may be abused” does not justify its abolition. It further ruled that the constraints enforced via Section 144 do not violate the right to freedom of speech and expression. The imposition of Section 144 falls under the “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Conversely, in 2012, the Supreme Court criticized the government for invoking Section 144 against a sleeping crowd in Ramlila Maidan. The court held that such a provision should only be utilized in severe situations for preserving public peace. The emergency must be sudden, and the consequences sufficiently serious.