The Hon’ble SC on Monday held a view on the ongoing protest at Shaheen Bagh for more than 2 months. The Shaheen Bagh Protest is an 24/7 protest led by women opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act which was passed on 11th December, 2019. The apex court held that the anti-CAA protesters at Shaheen Bagh have no right to block and cause inconvenience to the commuters of the road. That specific road which is opted for the protest is said to be a connecting road of Noida-Delhi-Faridabad and causing hardship to lakhs of commuters everyday says the petition. The matter being heard by the bench comprising of Justice S K Kaul and Justice K M Joseph asked the Center, Delhi Government and Police to clear the protesters by issuing notices. The bench also mentioned that there are almost 144 petitions being filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Act. The passing of act not only at Shaheen Bagh but has caused an outbreak at every part of the nation.
Sahni who had approached the HC filing an petition to clear the protesters in the Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch and to ensure smooth traffic by seeking directions from the HC to the Delhi police. Separately Garg, has filed a petition to clear the anti-CAA protesters from the road. HC had asked the local authorities to deal with the protesters keeping the law and order in mind. Garg mentioned in his plea that the state has the duty to protect the fundamental rights of a citizen who are continuously being harassed in the name of protest by blockage of major road.
"Can you block a public road? You cannot block it. Suppose there is a public park, you cannot hold protest there," the bench said. The bench also mentioned expressly that “it must be done in an area which is designated for protests.” The apex court also said that a protest cannot be held for an indefinite period of time. As the protest is being held for more than 50 days the hon’ble SC is concerned about the commuters of Kalindi Kunj-Shaheen Bagh stretch for their daily purposes. The bench had posted the matter for further hearing on February 17. After the petitioner being sought the interim relief, the bench said that it would consider the plea only after hearing the other side as the petitioners urged the bench to pass some direction as it was causing a huge inconvenience to the public.
86540
103860
630
114
59824
