Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Bombay supreme court (Bench at Aurangabad) gave a verdict to a petition filed by one Iftekhar Zakee Shaikh has quashed the order passed under the section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure to ban protests and demonstration against Citizenship Amendment Act. "It are often said that though the order on face appears to be against everybody, actually the order is against persons who want to agitate, to protest against CAA. at the present such agitations are happening everywhere and there was no whisper of agitations of other nature during this region. Thus, it are often said that there was no fairness and therefore the order wasn't made honestly," the bench comprising of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice MG Sewlikar. The bench also mentioned that their peaceful protests must be considered and observed that the people that oppose CAA can't be termed as anti-nationals. "This Court wants to precise that such persons can't be called as traitors, anti-nationals only because they need to oppose one law. it'll be act of protest and only against the govt for the reason of CAA", said on the decision delivered on February 13. The bench associated this issue with the one Indians won the independence from the Britishers. The bench in reference claimed that
"It can be said that it's unfortunate but the people are required to agitate against their own Government now but only thereon ground the agitation can't be suppressed". The court rightfully mentioned for the people that believe that it's against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution i.e. ‘equality’, thus freedom of expression of one’s feelings as provided in Article 19 of the Constitution. "We are a democratic republic country and our constitution has given us rule of law and not rule of majority. When such act is formed , some people could also be of a specific religion like Muslims may feel that it's against their interest and such act must be opposed. it's a matter of their perception and belief and therefore the Court cannot enter the merits of that perception or belief. The Courts are certain to see whether these persons have right to agitate, oppose the law. If the Court finds that it's a part of their fundamental right, it's not open to the Court to determine whether the exercise of such right will create law and order problem."
The court appreciated that the people have step forward unanimously saying that their rights are impinged and raising against on what they believed. Thus the court in its final verdict quashed the order u/s 144 of Cr.P.C and made it to be illegal.
86540
103860
630
114
59824