SC Dismisses Review Petition Challenging its October 2020 Verdict on Shaheen Bagh Protests

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari has rejected the review petition questioning its October 2020 Judgement on Shaheen Bagh protests reiterating its stand that prolonged protests cannot be at the cost of the continued occupation of public spaces affecting the rights of others  

The bench while dismissing the plea held ruled that "right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere." 

"Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties. The right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public place affecting rights of others," SC  on 9th of February, 2021. 

The Supreme Court’s October verdict came in the context of the protests held against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act or CAA at South Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh area. 

The protests were started on 15th of December, 2019 and ended after the Government of India has imposed the nationwide  lockdown on March 24, 2020. The protests threw traffic out of gear in Shaheen Bagh, prompting one Amit Sahni, a resident of Delhi, to file a PIL under article 32 of the Indian Constitution that resulted in the October 7 decision. 

"We have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone," SC  in its October 2020 verdict. 

The review plea under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution had raised five grounds to challenge the October order. 

The petitioners had argued mainly argued that Police giving wide powers to police in such cases gives them a free hand to abuse their position and commit atrocities against the vulnerable section of the public in a bid to silence their legitimate voice during protests.

The review plea had further stated that the Apex Court’s verdict would lead to a situation where the administration would never engage in dialogue with protesters but would instead take action against them including their prosecution.