The Calcutta High Court on 23rd August, declined to issue prohibitory orders to prevent student organisations from marching towards the State’s Secretariat in Nabanna, to protest against the brutal rape and murder of a trainee doctor at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital.
Notably, though it was claimed that the protests, to be carried out by student bodies would be peaceful in nature, there was widespread violence at the protests, leading to injuries to several protestors and police personnel and destruction of public property.
A coordinate bench of the court also dismissed a PIL against a 12-hour bandh called by the BJP to protest police action during the protest.
A division bench of Justices Harish Tandon and Hiranmay Bhattacharya relied on the Apex Court’s judgement passed on 22nd August in a suo moto matter over the rape-murder, and held:
“The Apex Court in its order dated 22.08.2024 in unequivocal terms held that the permission to hold the protest in peaceful manner cannot be construed as an injunction upon the State from exercising such lawful powers entrusted in terms of the law. The Apex Court reiterated and reaffirmed its view that the peaceful protest should not be disturbed or disrupted and the State or its instrumentalities should not take any precipitate action against the incident that took place at R.G. Kar Medical College Hospital…”
Peaceful protests shall not be disrupted by the State
The division bench held that the protests claiming to be peaceful in nature shall not be interrupted by the state. It relied on the Apex Court’s order which prohibited the State from taking any action against peaceful protestors.
“…Right to protest in a peaceful manner is ingrained under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19 (1)(b) of the Constitution of India contained in Part-III of the Constitution of India. The right emanating from the aforementioned Articles leads to an inescapable conclusion that no one can be deprived of his fundamental rights nor can be taken away or abridged. Such right is obviously subject to the Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, it is co-extensive.”
Protests not called by political parties but by student organisations
The court further declined to prohibit the protest from going ahead since it was claimed by the organisers that the marches were being organised by student organisations who did not have political backing.
“It would be unnecessarily burdening the order if all the judgments so cited are dealt with in seriatim for the simple reason that the petitioner has categorically averred in the instant writ-petition that that the said protest and/or rally is called by the quarter of the civil societies who are not affiliated with political parties or social organizations…”
Although the court declined the primary relief and allowed the protests to go ahead, it called for affidavits on the issue of ensuring security during protests/rallies to be organised at the Nabanna.
Case: Debranjan Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: WPA(P) 360 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 197
#airr #news #airrnews #channel #Legal #case #India #court #highcourt #supremecourt
