The liberty of a citizen cannot be curtailed in a casual manner by referring to crimes related to public demonstrations, the Kerala High Court has held.
The court elaborated that a mere participation in demonstrations, holding of banners or shouting slogans, cannot be perceived as activities in violation of reasonable restrictions prescribed in Article 19 of the Constitution, which deals with the freedom of speech, expression, assembly, and movement.
Justice V.G. Arun made the observations while quashing the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna, asking A. Sharmina of Malappuram to show cause why she should not be ordered to execute a bond for ₹50,000 with sureties to keep peace for one year.
The order was based on a report of the Station House Officer of Kolathur Police Station which stated that the 24-year-old woman was repeatedly indulging in illegal activities and was likely to cause breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity in the locality.
The police had registered a case against her and a few others for holding a procession to commemorate the death anniversary of Kavitha, who was associated with a Maoist group, organising a demonstration, disrupting traffic, and shouting the slogan “In the land of Babari, Justice is only Masjid.” She was also booked for protesting against a raid conducted by the National Investigation Agency at Pandikkad.
The counsel for the woman argued that voicing one’s opinion and expressing dissent were the fundamental rights of every citizen, and that her liberty cannot be curtailed for participating in demonstrations and and voicing her opinion.
The court noted that the mere mentioning of crimes pending against a person would not satisfy the requirement of giving reasons and the apprehended breach of peace must be imminent. The conduct of wrongful acts, which are projected as the reason for issuing the order, must have occurred recently and relatable to the apprehension of likelihood of breach of peace.
The impugned order does not even indicate the factors that had prompted the magistrate to form an opinion that, unless prevented, activities of the petitioner will result in breach of peace and disturb public tranquillity, the court held.
It was found that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had not formed an independent opinion that the activities of the petitioner were an imminent threat to the peace and tranquillity in the locality. The magistrate must pass a preliminary order, stating the nature of information received and the relevant factors which influenced him to form an opinion that the person concerned was likely to cause imminent breach of peace, making it essential to take preventive action against that person, the court held.
Published – March 05, 2025 01:22 am IST
