CONSTITUTION I

CONTINUOUS EVALUATION
TOPIC: CASE ANALYSIS
CASE NAME:
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012)
CITATION: [2012] 5 SCC 1

SUBMITTED BY: AKRAMA JAVED

REGISTRATION NO: 19A017
E-MAIL- [email protected]
 RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT V. HOME SECRETARY, UOI (2012), CASE ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

The instant case of Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4/5.06.2011 vs Home Secretary and
Ors1. affirmed the ‘right to sleep’ as a protected right under the ambit of Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution2. This was not for the first time that matter of the Right to Sleep had
come up in the court. The same had been dealt with earlier in various cases. But in the
instant case, the court went on to describe ‘The Right to Sleep’ as a basic human right.
Various cases laws that have come up, ever since the adoption of the Indian Constitution,
have reflected on the idea as to how Article 21 doesn’t only mean an ‘animal existence’ but
ensuring a ‘life of quality’. The Present case brought to light questions pertaining ‘right to
sleep’ of an individual and other corollary rights. Hence, broadening the scope of protected
right under Article 21, thereby ensuring a better quality of life 3. Furthermore, it also
elucidated on the power of the State with regards to restricting the scope of Fundamental
Rights as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution whenever conflicting with peace and
tranquillity, for the greater common good. The case came into the court because of the
Violation of FRs of the protestors (led by Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev) sleeping at the Ramlila
Maidan premises in New Delhi on the dead midnight of 4 th June 2011. The SC also elucidated
on Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) while understanding reasonable restrictions
mentioned in these articles4. SC opined the Judgement in favour of the victims who suffered
injuries due to the violation of their Fundamental Rights through the arbitrary exercise of
provisions mentioned in Section 144 of the Cr.P.C 5. Due to unforeseen and unfortunate
events that followed on the latter date, the apex had to take Suo-Moto cognizance of the
entire matter resulting in a landmark precedent.

DESCRIPTION/ BACKGROUND
Jurisdiction: In Supreme Court of India, Criminal Original Jurisdiction, Suo Moto Writ
Petition (CRL.) NO. 122 of 2011
Parties: In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt.4/5.06.2011 V. Home Secretary, Union of India
& Ors.
Relevant Facts and History (Facts of the case as was put forward by Amicus Curiae and
Police version):
Baba Ramdev was among one of the first few people to raise the issue of rampant corruption
and black money in India in 2008. He along with other activists such as Acharya Bala
Krishanan, Anna Hazare, and Ram Jethmalani organized a rally at Ramlila Maidan on 27 th
February 2011. According to various agencies across the world, the total black money
amounted to about Rs. 400 lakh crores. The instant case pertains to whatever happened on the
night of 2nd June 2011. Baba Ram Dev, along with his followers was protesting against the
government to implement policies so as to eliminate the menace of black money and
corruption. He was supported by various activists in this endeavour. The issue of contention
1
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors., [2012] 5 SCC 1.
2
Indian Constitution, art. 21.
3
ibid.
4
Indian Constitution, art. 19.
5
Code of Criminal Procedure, sec. 144.

1|Page
 RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT V. HOME SECRETARY, UOI (2012), CASE ANALYSIS

was that Ramdev and his followers had converted the Yoga Camp into a Silent Protest
against the government without due permission of concerned authorities. According to the
information procured by Amicus Curiae in the present case, it came to the knowledge of the
court that Baba Ramdev had written a letter (dated 4th May 2011) to the PM of India
concerning his decision to go on an indefinite fast if Government doesn’t come up policy
initiatives to meet his demand to curb corruption menace. The government made attempt to
tackle the problem with Ramdev by replying to him with a letter in order to resolve the issue.
Further, it was also found that Ramdev through an application submitted to Municipal
Corporation Delhi (dated 20.4.2011) had proposed to take Ramlila Maidan on rent for the
purpose of organising a Yoga Training Camp for Bharat Swabhiman Trust from date 1 st June
to 21st June, 2011 for 4 to 5 thousand people. Similarly, the application was submitted to DCP
of Delhi Police. And permission was granted by concerned officials. In addition to the above,
it was also brought to the notice of the court that Baba Ramdev had also requested permission
for Dharna/Satyagraha at Jantar Mantar on 4 th June, 2011. Permission for the same was
granted with limited gathering.
In the meanwhile, a large number of followers of Yoga Guru has already gathered at Ramlila
Maidan on the 4th June. Despite repeated assurances given by the members of the trust, this
Yoga camp through the end of the day transformed into an Anshan with a large number of
people still coming in to join the Anshan. The gathered crown then decided to march towards
Jantar Mantar. Keeping in view that such a crowd couldn’t be accommodated at Jantar
Mantar, concerned authorities decided to withdraw permission. It was only then, that a large
number of government security forces were sent to Ramlila Maidan. It was on such occasion
that Police intervened in order to take Ramdev, who somehow disappeared from the dais but
was later caught. The Police authorities commanded the crowd to disperse by firing water
cannons, teargas, and charging on the sleeping crowd with lathi. The Police action wreaked
havoc, resulting in several injuries on the unarmed sleeping protestors.

Suo Moto Petition by the SC

After noticing such abuse of power by the Police and other concerned authorities in the
instant case, SC of India decided to take cognizance over the case through the virtue of
powers vested in it under Original Jurisdiction as mentioned in Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution on 6th June, 20116. Therefore, notice was issued to the Home Secretary, Union of
India, the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration, and the Police Commissioner of Delhi. The
notice demanded these institutions to show cause by filing personal affidavits, explaining the
unprecedented action by Police Authorities on the night of 4th-5th June, 2011 at Ramlila
Maidan against the peacefully sleeping crowd with such a brute force. The petition sought to
ask these authorities about the grave violation of Fundamental Rights of those present in the
Ramlila Maidan in order to ensure the Principal of Natural Justice.

Involvement of the Home Minister

Various aspersions were cast on the involvement of the Home Minister P. Chidambaram in
the order to the Police Authorities, asking them to evacuate Ramlila Maidan by forcefully
Ramdev and his followers. Following the same, Counsel for Respondent 4 (The Trust and its
members), Ramjethmalani, even went on asking for the resignation of the Home Minister by

6
Indian Constitution art. 32.

2|Page
 RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT V. HOME SECRETARY, UOI (2012), CASE ANALYSIS

implicating him for carrying out such orders which he described as, “most aggressive,
immoral and almost criminal operation.”
Amicus Curiae, Rajiv Dhawan in his findings had stated the involvement of Home Ministry
which had already made such plans regarding forced eviction at night.
One such submission included direct a statement of Mr. P. Chidambaram in which he had
said that “A decision was taken that Shri Baba Ramdev would not be allowed to organise any
protest or undertake any fast-unto-death at Ramlila ground and that if he persisted in his
efforts to do so he would be directed to remove
himself from Delhi.”
A lot was argued in the court regarding such a callous statement by the Home Minister
against Baba Ramdev. But in the final decision, The Police was held responsible for its
actions. And it was found that Mr. Chidambaram didn’t order such a crackdown but was
informed of the same. The Police had in its independent authority taken such actions.
Solicitor-General Rohinton Nariman, further assured the court that Delhi Police do not
directly deal with the Home Minister but only up to Secretary level. Such allegations as
leveled by the prosecution and found in Amicus Curiae were found to be unwarranted and
hence the court decided to ignore the specific issue.

BASED ON THE LAW AND FACTS, THE ISSUES THAT AROSE

WERE:

1. Whether power under section 144 of Cr.P.C has been misused?

2. Whether the Right to sleep can be read into Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution?
3. Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of Ramdev Baba’s trust?

FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS BY THE COURT

In the instant case, SC provided a landmark judgement by elucidating on the violation of the
Fundamental Right to Speech and Expression and the Fundamental Right to assemble
peacefully without arms. It affirmed our faith in the sacrosanct nature of these rights which
are a part of the basic structure of the Indian constitution, hence given ‘a transcendental
position’ making them beyond the reach of the Parliament 7. The court went to explain on the
‘right to sleep’ as a basic human right.
The Judgement in the present case was given by two Judge Bench of Justice Swatantra
Kumar and Justice B.S. Chauhan8. The judgement was illustrated as follows;
Proceeding with the caveat that, through such vested powers, the court doesn’t strive to quash
state action or repudiate legislation but rather strives to make the democratic process fair,
judicious, and transparent through its power to exercise judicial review.
Firstly, the court dealt with the issue of misuse of power by the Police. It was after much
deliberation when the court came to the conclusion that the use of force by the Police
Authorities either independently or in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs is a
7
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, [1973] 4 SCC 225.
8
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary and Ors., [2012] 5 SCC 1.

3|Page
 RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT V. HOME SECRETARY, UOI (2012), CASE ANALYSIS

grave misuse of such powers vested with them under provisions mentioned in Cr.P.C 9. The
powers granted to the Police through Section 144 of Cr.P.C have time and again said to be
used with due care and caution10. It is to be noted that such arbitrary and callous action by
State authorities cannot be justified because the situation on the ground was not serious
enough to warrant such an action (no imminent danger prevailed). The decision of Police
Authorities to strike on unarmed peaceful protestors who were sleeping clearly reflects on the
State’s invasion of protestors Liberties and Freedom of Expression which are surely
guaranteed by the Constitution itself. It is to be noted that the protestors were merely
enjoying their Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution of India and weren’t even
violating any provisions mentioned in Section 144 of CrPC.
The court further illustrated acknowledging the ‘Contributory Negligence’ by the members of
the trust11;
On this, the court was of the opinion that it is necessary to take Police permission (which is
an important organ of the state) before organising such Dharna, Rally, or Procession. And
taking of such permission wouldn’t be in contravention of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by
the state under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). Instead the same will help the State in
maintaining ‘social order and public tranquillity’. So that no damage is done to public and
private property and also to ensure that right under Article 21 of others does not impinge12.
However, the Police should also keep in mind that such power (to give permission) has to be
exercised cautiously and never unreasonably so as to abuse the power granted. The refusal to
give permission has to be used in rare cases which demand such caution. It was suggested
that Police in such unprecedented circumstances should have acted on the advice of the Home
Ministry. The facts make it evident as to how Police in the instant case didn’t clearly follow
the principle of ‘least invasion’.
On the other hand, it should also be kept in mind, that Respondent no 4 were held accused of
‘contributory negligence’ because they wrongfully took the permission. The permission
granted, was for organising a yoga camp (with limited capacity) and not for an Anshan that
could have a larger participation. The Trust and its representative should have held their
moral and legal duty in high obligation. Further, it was also their duty to follow the Police
instruction regarding evacuation when commanded for the same. They should not have
insisted on staying at the Ramlila Maidan premises. This shows clearly their disregard
towards their Fundamental Duty mentioned under Article 51A, ‘to safeguard public property
and abjure violence’13. The court stressed that the way FRs are looked in the light of
reasonable restrictions, similarly FDs need also to be looked in the light of FRs so
guaranteed.

The court regarding the issue of enquiry and disciplinary proceedings ordered that it is to be
kept in mind that there should be no generalization regarding the behaviour of the Police
personals. The two classes of Police who acted differently, have to be treated differently
while taking any disciplinary action. It was commanded that Police personnel in pandal who
didn’t help the injured in evacuation to undergo disciplinary proceeding. Criminal cases were
ordered to be filed against Police Officers, who caused damage to public property. Persons
9
Code of Criminal Procedure, sec. 144.
10
ibid.
11
Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, [2003] 8 SCC 731.
12
S.N. Dwivedi, Right to Group-Life Under the Constitution its Nature and Scope, 12 JILI (1970) 237.
13
Indian Constitution art. 51A.

4|Page
 RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT V. HOME SECRETARY, UOI (2012), CASE ANALYSIS

who were injured during such Police action were to be adequately compensated by the Police
authorities and also Respondent No. 4 (members of the trust), should also be held liable in a
limited manner to compensate injured individuals. The family of Raj Bala, (the person who
had died during the backlash) was awarded compensation of Rs. 5 lacs. Others with severe
injuries were given Rs. 50,000 each, while those with minor injuries were to be given Rs.
25,000 each.
Moreover, Justice B.S. Chauhan, focussed on the ‘right to sleep’ as a constituent basic human
right falling under the wider ambit of Article 21 14. Elucidating on the necessity and
importance of sleep, it was said that when a person is sleeping, he is half dead. His mental
faculties are at rest, for sleep is a necessity not a luxury. It is a state of slumber that ensures a
healthy life. Being a biological necessity, it might disrupt the mental and physical capability
of an individual when not optimally taken. Sleep helps humans function effectively
throughout the day. It rejuvenates the mind, body, and soul, and it is vital for healthy
functioning of the digestive system, energy balance and cardiovascular-related health issues.
Disruption in normal sleep cycle forcefully is therefore a violation of basic human rights.
And to do so suddenly, might leave a person in a state of shock and fear.
Therefore, such a sudden and haste Police action in Ramlila Maidan on the night of 4 th June
did affect the basic life of an individual. Sleep is considered ‘a twin of death’ according to an
Irish proverb. Truly so, we are unaware of our surroundings during the time we are asleep.
Hence, a sleeping person cannot be said to be committing any crime when both his mental
and physical state is at rest. Following the latter facts, we can easily conclude that such harsh
action in order to disperse the sleeping crowd is shocking and bewildering at the same time.
The crowd could have been asked to disperse peacefully in the morning. There can be no
explanation and justification for such tyrannical recourse.
The court however recognised rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) for this case. Also,
‘right to sleep’ was called a FR under the ambit of Article 21 in this case. Latter reasons,
make the case a landmark one.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

Under this section, analysis of various Article dealt in the Judgement is done giving due
consideration to authorities cited while dealing with a specific Article of the Indian
Constitution.
Violation of Article 19(1)(a)
Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution reads as15;
“All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”.
Fundamental Rights in India are inspired by the First Amendment of the US Constitution,
though freedom speech is interpreted quite differently in the two constitutions. 16 The latter
right implies to express oneself through views, opinions, beliefs etc 17. It should also be noted
that Article 19(1)(a) entails ‘Freedom of Press’ too18.

14
Indian Constitution art. 21.
15
Indian Constitution art. 19(1)(a).
16
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Fourth Edn., Vol.1)
17
Jain M. P., Indian Constitutional Law (5th Edition 2006, Wadhwa Publications)

5|Page
 RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT V. HOME SECRETARY, UOI (2012), CASE ANALYSIS

In reference to the above case, it is to be acknowledged that Ramdev and his followers were
exercising their rights under Article 19(1)(a), through the form of dissent and protests.
Various authorities on the same include case such as S. Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram 19. In
which it was decided that the state has a responsibility towards the security and protection of
those exercising their right to speech and expression.
In the instant case, the protest was completely peaceful according to the principles of
Satyagraha, but the government wanted to stop these protestors using a provision in Cr.P.C.
According to Section 144 of the latter, an Executive Magistrate has an authority to order the
protestors to disperse if there is an apprehension of danger and immediate prevention is
needed20. But it is to notes that Police intervention took place without any apprehension of
immediate danger. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras case is an authority on the same, in
which it was held that “local breaches of public order were no grounds for restricting the
freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution.”21 Similarly, the idea of regulation of
speech by a democratic process has been explained in the case of Saxena v. Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India22.
Since FRs are limited and not absolute, there are various reasonable restrictions mentioned in
Article 19(2), that limit the scope of Article 19(1)(a). Latter restrictions are on following
grounds such as, “interests of the sovereignty and 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.” SC had once rightly said that
these freedoms if not restricted will lead to anarchy and disorder in case of West Bengal Vs.
Subodh Gopal Bose23.
Hence, the ‘public order’ provision mentioned in Section 144 of Cr.P.C was being used here
to restrict the scope of Article 19(1)(a). Ram Jethmalani contended along the same line of
thought in the instant case. He argued that the remedy mentioned in Cr.P.C was not warranted
and hence, the Police action was in clear violation of the FR to Speech and Expression.

Violation of Article 19(1)(b)

Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution reads as24;
“All citizens shall have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms”.
This article gives the right to assembly. This also is a restrictive right with reasons as to,
“sovereignty and integrity of India or public order”. This article was similarly argued as to
the former. ‘Public Order’ in the instant case was assumed to be a reasonable restriction
while exercising the right to the assembly through provisions in Cr.P.C. But such issues were
refuted by arguments similar to as mentioned above because the threat to public order wasn’t
actually created in the first place. The court decided with authorities on the balancing
between rights and reasonable restrictions. In Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, it was

18
Noorani, A. G., ‘Press Freedom and Legal Remedies’, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 25, no. 42/43,
1990, pp. 2351–2351. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4396885. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
19
S. Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram, [1989] 2 SCC 574.
20
Code of Criminal Procedure, sec. 144.
21
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, [1950] SCR 594.
22
Saxena v. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, [1996] 5 SCC 216.
23
West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, [1954] AIR SC 92.
24
Indian Constitution art. 19(1)(b).

6|Page
 RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT V. HOME SECRETARY, UOI (2012), CASE ANALYSIS

decided that “question of reasonableness is a question primarily for the court to decide. 25
Moreover, in the case of State of Madras v. V.G. Row, it was held that there should be not
one fit for all while applying these restrictions. 26 The idea of a balance of interest between
reasonable restrictions and FRs was first propounded by Roscoe Pond in his book Social
Engineering, which says that social interest can be only backed by another social interest.
The court also explained the concept of an existing Fundamental Duty for a corresponding
Fundamental Right. In the instant case, protestors even followed their prescribed
Fundamental Duty, hence Police atrocity was in clear contravention of protestor’s FR.

Violation of Article 21 and Right to Sleep

Article 21 of the Constitution reads as27;
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.”
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees Right to Life28. Latter rights cannot be violated
except according to the procedure established by law in which case it should be just, fair and
reasonable. Procedure established by law was said to have deep meaning in the judgement of
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra29.
This article is available to citizens as well as a non-citizen and even convicts. This not just
includes the Right to Life but a life with human dignity 30. But it does not include the right to
commit suicide31. Physical liberty has been constituted under this article and was affirmed in
the case of Gopalan32. Freedom from physical restraint was further given a new dimension in
the case of Maneka Gandhi v. UoI33.
The Right to Sleep was included in this judgement to be a part of the wider ambit of Article
2134. Sleep was defined as an essential human need. Necessary to lead a healthy life free from
physical and mental stress. The court held that, since while sleeping, all are mental faculties
are at rest, hence one cannot commit any crime while sleeping. It was further noted that the
crackdown by Police was in violation of Article 21 because such sudden use of force must
have created a sense of shock and stress on the sleeping crowd 35. The court also elucidated on
the invasion of Privacy and Liberty of protestors who were forced to evacuate the premises36.

25
Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, [1961] AIR 884.
26
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, [1952] AIR SC 196.
27
Indian Consitution art. 21.
28
Seervai H. M., Constitutional Law of India (Volumes 1, 2 and 3, Fourth Edition 2007, Universal Law
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.)
29
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, [1978] 3 SCC 544.
30
Khaitan, Tarunabh. “Dignity as an Expressive Norm: Neither Vacuous Nor a Panacea.” Oxford Journal of
Legal Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, 2012, pp. 1–19., www.jstor.org/stable/41418847. Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
31
Ashraf, Md. Ali., ‘Culpability of attempt to commit suicide – a legal labyrinth amidst ethical quandary’,
Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 49, no. 4, 2007, pp. 503–524. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43952089.
Accessed 21 Sept. 2020.
32
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, [1950] SCR 88.
33
Maneka Gandhi v. UoI, [1978] AIR SC 597.
34
Indian Constitution art. 21.
35
ibid.
36
PUCL v. Union of India, [2004] 9 SCC 580.

7|Page
 RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT V. HOME SECRETARY, UOI (2012), CASE ANALYSIS

CONCLUSION
The use of force by Police on the night of 4 th-5th June 2011 was arbitrary and an abuse of
power by the authorities. It violated their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)
(a), Freedom of Speech and Expression, and 19(1)(b), Freedom to Assemble. Their Right to
Life under Article 21 was also violated.
It can be clearly observed from this case that the government failed to protect its peacefully
protesting citizen. This incident of barbarism is a blot on the democracy of our country. But
the Judgement by the court definitely reaffirmed our faith in the democracy and constitution
of our country. The SC adjudicated on the principle of justice, thereby giving this case the
status of a landmark case. This case will be used as a precedent every time the question arises
on the issue of police brutality leading to violation of FRs of our country.

8|Page