The top court also junked their request for an oral hearing of the review petition in open court. "We have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements and recorded our opinion that the Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to certain duties," said the top court.
In the October ruling, the top court had made it crystal clear that a protest was supposed to be held at designated places and the police have rights to remove persons holding protest outside designated places. Making a critical observation, the top court had then said: "The Shaheen Bagh protest perhaps no longer remained the sole and empowering voice of women, who also appeared to no longer have the ability to call off the protest themselves."
The Supreme Court had then said it cannot accept that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest, and cited the distinction between the manner of dissent against the colonizers and the expression of dissent in a democratic system.
The top court had stressed that India traces its foundation back to when the seeds of protest during our freedom struggle were sown deep, to eventually flower into a democracy.
"What must be kept in mind, however, is that the erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy," said the top court in October ruling.
The protest began on December 15, 2019 and ended only after a lockdown imposed by the Centre on March 24 last year in order to curb the spread of Covid-19. The protest blocked the road and led to traffic snarls at Shaheen Bagh, which was cited by Amit Sahni, a resident of Delhi, who filed a PIL before the top court, resulting in the October 7 verdict.
In the review petition, the petitioners had contended, "Prima facie the order under review appears to be giving way to an unrestricted sanction to the police to take action by misusing these observations."
The petitioners argued that such observations may prove to be a license in the hands of the police to commit atrocities on legitimate voice of protest, especially protesters coming from vulnerable sections of the social strata.
Dismissing the review, the top court said it has perused the "Review Petition and record of the Civil Appeal and are convinced that the order of which review has been sought, does not suffer from any error apparent warranting its reconsideration."
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.
We, however, have a request.
As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.
Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.