TC- T034

CASE COMMENTARY
COMPETITION

AMIT SAHNI
(APPELLANT)
V.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.
(RESPONDENT)

SC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3282 OF 2020

1|Page
 AMIT SAHNI V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS.

Abstract

In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and others, also known as the Shaheen Bagh case, the
Supreme Court observed that the right comes with certain obligations and duties, so as to balance
the fundamental rights with that of the public rights. In which the Court directed that the
protestors against the Citizenship (Amendment Act), 2019 could not block public ways
indefinitely, which prejudices the safety and security of local residents. Since the Constitution
itself clarifies that the fundamental rights are subjected to reasonable restrictions in the interest of
public order, security of the State, etc. under Article 19 (2) and (3).

The Shaheen Bagh case shows how the judiciary plays an important role in upholding the rule of
law. Since an independent judiciary is the bedrock of democracy, the Supreme Court's decisions
in matters tangled with political elements not only act as binding precedents but also enable
people to believe and trust the judiciary to settle their issues wisely, which is a core principle of
democracy. Thus, the paper aims to analyze the Supreme Court's verdict in the case of Amit
Sahni v. Commissioner of Police.

Key words: Citizenship Amendment Act, Shaheen Bagh, right to protest, Supreme Court,
public order

Jurisdiction Supreme Court of India

Quorum Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul,

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari &
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

Author of the judgment Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Date of the order 7-10-2020

Appellant Amit Sahni

Respondent Commissioner of Police and others

Counsel for Appellant Petitioner-in-Person

Counsel for Respondent Mr. Mansoor Ali, Advocate on Record

Acts and provisions involved I. Indian Constitution, 1950

 Article 14
 Article 19 (1) (a) & (b)
 Article 19 (2) and (3)
 Article 21 2|Page

II. The Citizenship (Amendment)

Act, 2019
 I. INTRODUCTION

A. The tenets of democracy, which depend on citizen engagement to foster good

governance, are the fundamental rights. The citizens have the fundamental right to speech
and expression and also the right to assemble peacefully without arms to raise their
voices and opinions against societal matters that concern people's well-being. It is
pertinent to point out that the journey of India's independence began with a non-violent
protest, and even now the people protest for the right cause.

B. But the fundamental rights are subject to reasonable restrictions so as to prevent the
misuse of these rights arbitrarily. And the same was observed by the Supreme Court in
the case of Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and others, also known as the
Shaheen Bagh case, in which the protest was carried out to oppose the Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2019 and blocked access to public roads and affected the safety of
commuters. The Supreme Court's decision to balance the fundamental rights with those
of the public rights to ensure peace and harmony in the country is evident that the
judiciary plays a significant role in upholding the spirit of democracy.

C. Hence this paper will analyze the decision of the Apex Court through the lens of
Constitutional jurisprudence and conclude with that of its impact on discussing the
current scenario on protest

II. FACTS AND ISSUES

A. The citizens protested against the Citizenship Amendment Act (hereinafter the CAA) and
the National Register of Citizens as discriminatory. A women-led sit-in was held protest
in Shaheen Bagh, Delhi, which resulted in the closure of the Kalindi Kunji-Shaheen Bagh
Stretch and Okhla underpass on December 15, 2019 onwards. Initially, the Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 429/2020 was filed before the Delhi High Court and was disposed of on the
same day itself. But the High Court directed the police authorities to exercise their power
wisely to handle agitations and control traffic to balance public interest on the one hand
and law and order on the other.

B. The Petitioner approached the Supreme Court as the situation remained the same despite
the High Court’s direction. The Apex Court appointed two interlocutors, namely Mr.
Sanjay R. Hedge and Ms. Sadhana Ramachandran, to mediate with the protestors at the
site to understand their demands properly.

3|Page
 C. The interlocutors submitted their 1st report on February 2, 2020, which reflected that the
conversation with the protestors on site was different from what the media had projected.
Then, the 2nd report submitted on March 22, 2020, stated the protest lacked able
leadership and the protestors were unable to understand the seriousness of the pandemic
and weren’t willing to relocate to another area to continue their protest1.

D. Thus, the present case discusses whether the protestors can occupy public places
indefinitely or if their rights are subjected to restrictions.

III. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT

A. The Appellant claim that the Constitution guarantees the citizens the right to express their
dissatisfaction with the legislature's conduct and protest against their policies and actions
for the well being of people, under Article 19 (1) (a) & (b), respectively.

B. Since the freedoms guaranteed certain basic rights to the citizens to involve their
participation in the affairs of the government and directed the State to comply with its
duties and responsibilities for a welfare state. Thus, Article 19 promotes democratic
values in the country.

C. The CAA, a discriminatory one for the Muslims, is a reasonable issue that has to be
communicated to the State so that the life, liberty, and freedoms of the people are
protected by law as envisaged under Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) & (b), and 21 for the smooth
functioning of democracy.

D. Thus, the citizens have the right to oppose the CAA, which is prejudiced against the
Muslims in the country.

IV. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT

A. The Respondents claim that the fundamental rights guaranteed are not absolute in nature
as these rights are subjected to reasonable restrictions as provided under clauses (2) &
(3) of Article 19.

1
SC Civil Appeal No. 3282 of 2020 para 9-10 at 4-5

4|Page
 B. The restrictions imposed are justified so as to achieve sovereignty, integrity, security,
public order, etc., in the country, and the restrictions should not be arbitrary or excessive
in nature. A reasonable restriction is permissible within the constitutional limits, that is,
in the interest of public order.

C. The Respondent claims that protestors blocked the public streets, roads, and ways, which
caused inconvenience to the commuters, and the reports of the interlocutors state that the
protestors lacked leadership because of which other groups intervened to disrupt the
safety and security of the commuters, and along with the fear of the rapid spread of
coronavirus.

D. Thus, the freedom to protest shall be limited to maintaining law and order in the area.

V. JUDGMENT

A. The Supreme Court referred the decision of Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of
Police, Ahmedabad & Anr.2 to direct the State authorities to handle the situation to
prevent agitation by allowing protest in a designated places to maintain public order in
the locality, and also to prevent encroachment of public ways indefinitely, as

 "Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing
dissent have to be in designated places alone" 3.

B. The court also directed the concerned authorities to take into account the traffic, human
safety and security, and also public tranquility before allowing or disallowing public
meetings and also emphasized that the fundamental right to protest comes along with an
obligation to fulfill their duties, which is an important tool in democracy, on referring
the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India & Anr.4, as

 "….each fundamental right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in

isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right. It was in this
respect, that in this case, an attempt was made by us to reach a solution where the
rights of protestors were to be balanced with that of commuters" 5

2
(1973) 1 SCC 227
3
Supra note 1 para 17 at 10
4
(2018) 17 SCC 324
5
Supra note 1 para 16 at 10

5|Page
VI. ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

A. The Supreme Court observed that the right comes along with certain obligations and
duties, such that the citizens shall protest peacefully by limiting at certain places so as to
prevent inconvenience to the commuters, on keeping in mind the rapid spread of
coronavirus. Since the State has an obligation to secure the welfare of the people, that is,
health, safety and security of public.

B. But the ratio decidendi is the fundamental principle, which addresses the question of law
and reasons for the decisions to bind as precedents. And in the present case, neither issues
nor question of law were framed or addressed, and thus the judgment cannot have a
binding effect.

C. The bench didn't maintain transparency in its proceedings by publishing the interlocutor's
report in the public domain, so that the public could know the true intent and demands of
the protestors.

D. The judgment states that the public roads cannot be encroached upon in this manner and
requires the authorities to allow dissent at designated places. Here, judiciary's main
concern is to prevent inconvenience to the commuters by directing the protest to take
place at designated place and time. But it remains silent on who is the concerned
authority to decide the duration and place of the protest? This unsettled question would
be arbitrarily used by the authorities to settle the dissent in favor of the political
atmosphere.

E. The judgment didn't address the discrepancies with proper guidelines, so that the
administrators could handle the situations properly in future.

VII. CONCLUSION

A. The judiciary is one of the pillars of the Constitution, it renders decisions fairly,
independently, and impartially to promote social, economic, and political justice, as
mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution. The judiciary's intervention is much
needed in cases involving political elements, and the Supreme Court's decision in the
Shaheen Bagh case is inadequate.

6|Page
 B. Most importantly, it lacks ratio decidendi, which creates room for ambiguity for the
lower courts to deal with similar cases like this, and it would give birth to another
incident of Shaheen bagh protest in the future, as evident from the farmers' protest
against the three farm laws from 2020-2021, in which the Supreme Court said that the
farmers can protest peacefully without any impediment and called the Constitutional
Committee to resolve the issue by refusing to interfere with the matter 6

C. Even though the Shaheen Bagh decision is subjected to criticism for failing to give proper
guidelines to deal future incidents unlike the Supreme Court's proactive decisions in the
Vishaka case7, Nirbhaya case8 and Kesavanandha Bharati case9, etc., the court at least
mentioned that the fundamental right comes along with obligation to perform duties
vigilantly. Hence, it's now the responsibility of the State to up come with regulations to
ensure the demonstrations which restrict the rights reasonably so that the general public
are not affected.

VIII. RELATED CASE LAWS

1. Beenu Rawat v. Union of India, writ petition (civil) no.446 of 2013.

2. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & ors. v. P. Ayyakannu W.P. No. 8652 of 2018
3. Anita Thakur & ors. v. Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir & ors. WP (Criminal) No. 118 of
2007
4. The Home Secretary v. Era Selvam W.A. Nos. 842 and 843 of 2013
5. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC
6. Rama Muthuramalinga,, State Propaganda Committee Member, Thanthai Periyar
Dravidar Kazhagam, Tiruvarur District v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District and others, 2004 (5) CTC 554

IX. REFERENCE

1. Nishtha Sachan & Siddhant Dubey, Amit Sahni Judgement: The Freedom of Road, Lex
Forti, https://lexforti.com/legal-news/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Case-summary-
NISHTHA-SACHAN-Amit-Sahni-Judgement.pdf

2. Dr. M.P. Chengappa & Ms. Aditi Jajodi, The Shaheen Bagh Judgment: An Attack on
Democratic Dissent or a Reasonable Restriction on Public Demonstration? An Analysis,
CMR University Journal III, https://www.cmr.edu.in/school-of-legal-studies/journal/wp-
6
Rakesh Vaishnav & ors. v. Union of India & ors. AIR 2020 SC 18
7
Vishaka & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241
8
Mukesh & ors v. State for NCT of Delhi & ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1
9
Kesavanandha Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461

7|Page
 content/uploads/2022/02/04-The-Shaheen-Bagh-Judgment-An-Attack-on-Democratic-
Dissent-or-a-Reasonable-Restriction-on-Public-Demonstration-An-Analysis.pdf

3. Rashmi Raghavan, Objection your Honour! Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police & Ors.,
Public Law Bulletin 33 XVIII, (2021)
https://ilslaw.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/January-2021-PLB.pdf

4. Right to protest or Right to obstruct, ILI Newsletter 9 XXII (2020), https://www.ili.ac.in/Oct

%20-%20Dec%20-%202020_6_2.pdf\

5. Ujjwal Uberoi, Case Comment-Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police & others, JSLR (Nov.
6, 2022 15:04PM ) https://www.jlsrjournal.in/case-comment-amit-sahni-vs-commissioner-
of-police-ors-by-ujjwal-uberoi/

6. Adnan Yousuf, The Supreme Court's judgment in Amit Sahni Case and International
Human Rights Law, THE CONTEMPORARY LAW FORUM ((Nov. 6, 2022 15:04PM )
https://tclf.in/2020/12/29/the-supreme-courts-judgement-in-amit-sahni-case-and-
international-human-rights-law/

7. Prachi Bhardwaj, Shaheen Bagh Protests | Democracy and dissent go hand in hand but
public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely for expressing dissent: SC, SCC BLOG
((Nov. 6, 2022 15:04PM ) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/10/07/shaheen-bagh-
protests-democracy-and-dissent-go-hand-in-hand-but-public-spaces-cannot-be-occupied-
indefinitely-for-expressing-dissent-sc/

8. Prachi Bhardwaj, Farmer's protest can continue peacefully without impediment. Supreme
court calls for constitution of a committee to resolve the issue, SCC BLOG ((Nov. 6, 2022
15:04PM) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/12/17/farmers-protest-can-continue-
peacefully-without-impediment-supreme-court-calls-for-constitution-of-a-committee-to-
resolve-the-issue.

8|Page