Freedom To Assemble Peacefully
Article 19 is one of the most important articles establishing the “fundamental freedoms” guaranteed to all citizens of India. Article 19 (1) provides that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech, expression, assembly, association, movement, residence and trade, business, profession or profession. Article 19(1)(b) guarantees all citizens of India the right to “assemble peacefully without arms”. This right includes the right to hold meetings and march.
However, the rights are subject to the following restrictions: –
1) Meetings should be peaceful and harmonious.
2) Must be unarmed and must not endanger people’s safety.
3) may impose appropriate restrictions in accordance with Article 19(3);
The right to assembly embodies the ideals of democratic government. Section 19(1)(b) therefore includes the right to hold meetings and marches. However, this right is not absolute, but rather limited. Assemblies must be non-violent and must not disturb the peace of society. Disorderly and/or violent gatherings are not protected by Section 19(1)(b) and Section 19(3) will take effect. A reasonable limitation under Section 19(3) is for the sovereignty and integrity of India or for public order. Section 19(b) has always been the subject of national debate. It has been considered, studied and interpreted many times by the Supreme Court. Section 144 also mentions unauthorized assembly. Section 144(6) gives the government powers in certain cases to make meetings of five or more people unlawful. Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code sets out the conditions under which an assembly becomes ‘illegal’. According to this, a gathering of five or more people is an illegal gathering if the common purpose of the people composing the gathering is to:
(a) to defend or resist enforcement against any law or legal process;
(b) commit mischief or trespassing of any kind;
(c) taking property by force;
(d) induce or coerce any person to do or refrain from doing anything that is not legally required by law;
(e) to overwhelm the government by criminal violence or demonstration of criminal violence, i.e. to frighten or frighten the government, or to exercise any lawful authority;
CAN THE STATE RESTRICT A CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO PROTEST?
The questions that most often arise regarding Article 19(1)(b) are: Can the state restrict the right of individuals to protest? Baba Ramdev and his supporters protested against corruption and black his money at midnight on 4-5 June 2011 in Ramlili Maidan, Delhi. A landmark Supreme Court decision in a case that was Their protests were directed at the government’s failure to take effective steps to curb the threat of black money and corruption in India. The Supreme Court ruled that the protests were peaceful. did. Satyagraha beyond the concept of “passive resistance” is the essence of democracy. Satyagraha is non-violent, not aggression, and its power lies in truth and the ability to fight for it. In this ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the right to peaceful protest as a constitutional right, and by holding dharnas the right to assemble and demonstrate is a fundamental feature of an effective democratic system. People in democracies have the right to speak out against government decisions and unjust actions, and to speak out on issues of national importance. Governments have a duty to respect and encourage the exercise of these rights. More recently, however, political power has resorted to the use of police power to prevent people from exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly. Again, using police powers, the order was given that the scale of the protest should not be too big and should be small. Additionally, Section 144 of the CrPC was illegally imposed. In this regard, the Supreme Court stated that the decision to forcibly evict those who were staying in Ramlila Maidan at midnight on 4-5 June 2011 was taken by the police on its own or after consultation with the Ministry of Interior. It was made afterward, and was found to be arbitrary and a violation of human rights. power and impossibility. It was an intrusion into the legal protections available to those out there. Regulations were thus unfairly enforced, demonstrating the power of the state. But after these observations, the ruling took a strange turn, stating that it was the duty of all protestors to comply with lawful orders. Why did protesters accept such an order if it was not legal? Protesters who organize peaceful protests within their constitutional rights have the same right not to accept illegal orders that deny them the right to protest. He should not risk being punished if the order is deemed illegal. But what the ruling means is that whenever an individual’s basic right to protest is thwarted by the state, they must immediately accept those orders or face punishment.
But citizens cannot be forced to give up their basic rights just because the state decides to limit their right to protest. The ruling upheld the right to protest as a fundamental right of speech and assembly, but made highly questionable statements, stating that if protesters were denied the right to protest, they risked accepting the denial or participating in a police crackdown. He said that he must contribute at the expense of This part of the judgment requires extensive discussion and debate to find its shortcomings and should perhaps be reconsidered.
Significance of Freedom of Assembly:
1.The right to assembly and assembly, both public and private, is guaranteed by the right to freedom of assembly. Gatherings serve as venues for individuals to advocate for change and raise awareness about issues important to them, such as human rights, socioeconomic rights, and other issues.
2.The right to assembly is an important tool for citizens to express their views to their leaders and other members of society. It promotes public debate and diversity and is a powerful tool for social change
In the landmark case of Romesh Thappar v. The State Of Madras(1950), the Supreme Court observed that, “freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the processes of popular government, is possible”. The Court in this case held that the freedom of circulation is as important as the freedom of publication.
In Bennett Coleman & Co v. Union of India(1972), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the freedom of the press embodies the right of the people to free speech and expression.
The right of citizens to protest and assemble peacefully without the use of weapons is a cornerstone of Indian democracy. Governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from violent protests, but they must keep in mind certain core values. One of the key ideas for democracy to survive and thrive is the right to protest. But if the protests turn violent, as has happened with some recent protests, the movement’s goals are thwarted. In a democratic society, we must protect our rights while fulfilling our duties and responsibilities.
Legal Article: Right to Peaceful Assembly – Law Times Journal
Freedom of Assembly – Indian Polity Notes (prepp.in)
Freedom of assembly – Wikipedia
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at email@example.com