In this democratic country we enjoying the right to protest and no one can snatch this power from us. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul declined to review its last year order that the occupation of public ways during the anti-CAA protests at Shaheen Bagh was not acceptable.
The ruling came after a petition was filed in the SC highlighting problems caused by the protests which led to the roadblock and traffic problems.
In the Shaheen Bagh protest case, in 2020, SC held that there is no absolute right to protest and public spaces cannot be occupied and that too indefinitely. It affects the right of the general public to move freely without hindrance.
Recently, the Supreme Court has refused to review its earlier verdict on the Shaheen Bagh protest.
Protesters did not fully realise the ramifications of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued large gatherings in a small place and there was also a general unwillingness to relocate to another site.
The protest seemed typical of the many digitally-fuelled “leaderless” dissent seen in modern times.
The presence of various groups of protesters had resulted in many influencers, acting possibly at cross-purposes with each other.
Judicial review is defined as the doctrine under which executive and legislative actions are reviewed by the judiciary.
Judicial review is considered a basic structure of the constitution (Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain Case).
Judicial review is the power of the courts to consider the constitutionality of acts of organs of Government and declare it unconstitutional if it violates or is inconsistent with the basic principles of the Constitution.
This means that the power of the legislature to make laws is not absolute and that the validity and constitutionality of such laws are subject to review by the courts.
Judicial review is also called the interpretational and observer roles of the Indian judiciary.
The Indian Constitution adopted the Judicial Review on lines of the American Constitution.
Suo Moto cases and the Public Interest Litigation (PIL), with the discontinuation of the principle of Locus Standi, have allowed the judiciary to intervene in many public issues, even when there is no complaint from the aggrieved party.
Article 51A makes it a fundamental duty for every person to safeguard public property and to avoid violence during the protests and resorting to violence during public protests results in infringement of key fundamental duty of citizens.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution elucidates that right to free speech and expression. It includes that every person has the right to express their personal opinions but subjected to reasonable restrictions.
Article 19(1)(b) states about the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Thereby, the right to peaceful protest is bestowed to Indian citizens by our Constitution.
Article 19(2) imposes reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peaceably and without arms and to freedom of speech and expression as none of these rights are absolute in nature.
The reasonable restrictions are imposed in the interests of the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
