Can't repeat 'people can protest but not block roads': SC on Shaheen Bagh

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 26) said that it cannot say repeatedly that protesters at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi have the right to protest but they cannot block roads.

The top court said it had tried to find an out-of-the-box solution by appointing interlocutors to persuade the protesters considering the prevailing conditions.

Related news: Shaheen Bagh protests: Court-appointed interlocutors file report

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph said that though the court had thought of adopting an out-of-the-box solution but did not have any idea as to how far it had succeeded.

“We have already said in earlier hearings and cannot repeatedly say that the protesters do have the right to protest but they cannot block the roads,” the bench said.

Shaheen Bagh petitions

The apex court also deferred the hearing on petitions to remove the Shaheen Bagh protestors from that area to March 23 and said that it’s “time for all parties to lower temperatures.”

The statement comes in the backdrop of several incidents of violence that broke out in parts of northeast Delhi, claiming 23 lives and at least 200 injured in clashes between anti-CAA and pro-CAA protestors.

Related news: Shaheen Bagh: Testing the legal limits to peaceful protest

“We have seen the report of the interlocutors. We don’t want to discuss it here. We want to defer it. The environment is not conducive…let the police and the system work,” Justice Sanjay Kaul said.

The top court remarks came after advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi, appearing for BJP leader Nand Kishore Garg, sought some interim order for removal of protesters from the road at Shaheen Bagh, saying people are using their right to protest as a weapon and causing inconvenience to others.

It added, “We have thought of something which was an out of box solution to the problem. However, we don’t know how far we have succeeded but we must say that the interlocutors have made every endeavour to do whatever necessary to find the solution. We appreciate their efforts.”

Related news: In SC affidavit, Shaheen Bagh interlocutor says police blocked roads

The bench said that it had gone through the report of the two interlocutors senior advocate Sanjay Hegde and advocate Sadhana Ramachandran.

It told the interlocutors that people at Shaheen Bagh have to come forward for the solution. “Appointing of the interlocutors was an out-of-box solution. But let’s see, how far we have succeeded,” it added.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that interlocutors were asked by the court to persuade the protesters to vacate the road, not to find alternatives to the blocked roads.

Role of interlocutors

To this, the bench said, the court order was very clear in this regard.

“Their job was to instill confidence among the protesters that they have the right to protest but not at this place. We think they did their job well and we appreciate that,” the bench said.

It asked all the parties to maintain composure, saying that “this is not how the developing society works and behaves. There can be a difference of opinion. People may have their contra view which can be debated. There has to be a manner of debate.”

The top court agreed with the views of Mehta that “manifestation of dissent should be civilized”.

Related news: Road opened in Shaheen Bagh, but blocked again

The solicitor general said that the observation of the court should not be put in the order as it may have a demoralising effect on the law enforcing agencies.

“We agree with that. The problem is that media people in the court starts tweeting about any word spoken in the court. By the time, order is dictated, it is spread all over. Many a time, what has been expressed in court is not part of the order. What we say in court is part of a discussion, which we have. We must say that the views of the court is in its order,” the bench said.

Mehta said that he was not referring to the media but the parties on the other side, who may refer to the apex court’s order in other judicial platforms.

Advocate Mehmood Pracha, appearing for some of the parties said that it is an open court and media can report the observation made during the proceedings.

Related news:

The top court was hearing two pleas — one by lawyer and petitioner Amit Sahni and another by BJP leader Nand Kishore Garg — seeking removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh, the epicentre of agitation against the Citizenship Amendment Act for over two months.

On Monday, the Supreme Court-appointed interlocutors had filed their report in a sealed cover in the apex court following their talks with protestors at Shaheen Bagh.

The court had on February 17 asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde to “play a constructive role as an interlocutor” and talk to the protestors to move to an alternative site where no public place would be blocked.

It had said that Hegde along with advocate Sadhana Ramachandran or any other person of his choice may talk to the protestors.

Related news: Not only road connecting Delhi-Noida: Shaheen Bagh protesters tell interlocutors

Sahni, who had approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to Delhi Police to ensure smooth traffic flow on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch, which was blocked by anti-CAA protesters on December 15 last year.

While dealing with Sahni’s plea, the high court had asked local authorities to deal with the situation keeping in mind law and order.

Separately, former BJP MLA Nand Kishore Garg has filed a plea in the apex court seeking directions to authorities to remove protestors from Shaheen Bagh.

Restrictions have been imposed on the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch and the Okhla underpass, which were closed on December 15 last year due to protests against CAA and National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Delhi violence in Shaheen Bagh hearing

The Supreme Court took time off the Shaheen Bagh case and observed that “there was lack of professionalism on part of the police” during the ongoing Delhi violence.

Justice KM Joseph said, “If the law was strictly implemented, these things would not have happened,” while stating the example of the police force in the US and UK.

Related news: Fear, insecurity, unity behind Chennai’s own Shaheen Bagh protest

The top court, while making strong observations said, “Police don’t have to wait for orders if someone makes inflammatory statements but act in accordance with the law.”

He said that law and order need to be maintained and the force has to act professionally according to the law if something goes wrong. However, he urged that the remarks made were not in an adversarial context.

(With inputs from agencies)