Top court names mediators to end Shaheen blockade
›
Validity of (CAA) law is pending in SC. We are not saying that because it is pending in this court, people don’t have the right to protest. The question is where to protest
SUPREME COURT
NEWDELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday said that the right to protest was fundamental, but the blockade of a public road caused by the Shaheen Bagh stir was “troubling”, and appointed interlocutors to play a “constructive role” to persuade the protesters to move to an alternative site.
Protests at Shaheen Bagh have continued since December 15 last year, when a small group of women first assembled at the spot to oppose the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in Parliament. The crowd grew in size within days, leading to the blockade of an arterial road that passes through the area.
The apex court said the right to protest was recognised across the world in democratic countries and more so in India, but a public road was not the appropriate place to hold demonstrations. The SC ordered two lawyers, senior counsel Sanjay Hegde and advocate Sadhana Ramachandran, to meet the protesters at Shaheen Bagh and speak to them about an alternative protest site.
Hearing pleas seeking the removal of protesters to ensure smooth traffic flow, a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph underscored that people had the right to protest on a subject matter even if it was
pending in a court of law. However, such protests should not create chaos, it added.
“Certain section of society is aggrieved by a law. Validity of law is pending in SC. We are not saying that because it is pending in this court, people don’t have the right to protest. The question is where to protest. It should not be in a place like a street,” the top court said.
People have a fundamental right to protest “peacefully and lawfully” but the blocking of public roads could lead to “chaotic situation”. “Democracy works on expression of views but there are lines and boundaries for it,” the court said, adding that its “concern is if everybody starts blocking public areas then where will it end”.
“There must be a balancing factor,” the bench said. “Blocking of public road is troubling us,” the court added.
After the SC’S decision on being picked as an interlocutor, Hegde said: “My colleague Sadhana Ramachandran and I accept the responsibility placed upon us by the Supreme Court. We will be meeting all parties with a view to assisting them to resolve their issues in a manner that respects and safeguards both the right to protest and the requirements of orderly civic life. We hope that our assistance leads to these matters being resolved in good faith and to the satisfaction of all parties.”
He was also given the liberty to request the assistance of former chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, who sought to intervene in this case, to hold talks with the protesters. The matter will be heard by the court next on February 24.
One of the protesters at the Shaheen Bagh site said those assembled there were ready to talk to government officials. “If a government official wants to talk to us about CAA, NPR, and NRC, then they are welcome to do so,” she said.
Shaheen Bagh has become the epicentre of protests against CAA, which empowers the government to fast-track the grant of Indian citizenship to so-called persecuted minorities from the Muslim-majority nations of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The law has been criticised by many because of its exclusionary nature. It is also feared that it will be used in tandem with a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The government has clarified that there is no decision to implement a nationwide NRC.
Monday’s developments in the apex court came after the plea filed by advocate Amit Sahni and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Nand Kishore Garg, who sought the removal of the road blockade at the Shaheen Bagh–kalindi Kunj stretch.
Sahni said the road closure was causing great inconvenience to people at large. He argued that the road was a vital route since it connected three states — Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. The advocate added that the protests were subject to reasonable restrictions and agitators could not be allowed to occupy public roads indefinitely.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Union government, said that women and children were being used as shields at the protest site.
Justice Joseph told Mehta: “It is a fundamental right subject only to public order and security of state.”
Mehta, however, maintained that the court, while initiating talks with protesters, should not give the impression that the system had acquiesced to the protesters. “A message should not go that we have been brought to our knees,” said Mehta.