In a significant ruling that reinforces constitutional safeguards, the Gujarat High Court has struck down the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner's practice of repeatedly imposing prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court declared such serial orders, issued for extended periods, as illegal and unsustainable in law.
Court Condemns "Mechanical" Renewal of Orders
A division bench comprising Justice AS Supehia and Justice MR Mengdey delivered the judgment while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Mohammad Salim Mohammad Hanif Sheikh. The petitioner challenged the legality of orders issued by the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner from March 2020 onwards, which effectively kept Section 144 in perpetual force in the city.
The court scrutinized the police's justification, which cited potential threats to public peace and tranquility from various activities, including protests and processions. However, the bench found the reasoning lacking. The judges strongly criticized the "mechanical" manner in which the orders were renewed every 15 days without proper application of mind or assessment of the ground reality. They emphasized that such a practice amounts to a continuous suppression of citizens' fundamental rights.
Violation of Fundamental Rights and Legal Precedent
The High Court's ruling is firmly grounded in the protection of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, particularly the right to assemble peacefully (Article 19(1)(b)). The bench pointed out that the repeated imposition of Section 144, without a demonstrable emergent situation, directly infringes upon these freedoms.
The judgment relied on several key Supreme Court precedents. It referenced the landmark case of Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India (2020), which dealt with internet restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir. In that ruling, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that orders under Section 144 cannot be used as a tool to oppress dissent or suppress lawful activities indefinitely. The Gujarat HC noted that the Ahmedabad police's actions were in clear contravention of this principle, as the orders had become a permanent feature rather than an emergency measure.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the police commissioner's orders failed to provide specific reasons or material facts justifying the perceived threat to public order for such a prolonged duration. The generic and repetitive nature of the orders rendered them legally invalid.
Implications and the Path Forward
The immediate effect of the judgment is the quashing of the specific series of Section 144 orders challenged in the PIL. The court has directed the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner to refrain from issuing such repetitive orders in the future.
This ruling sets a crucial legal precedent not just for Ahmedabad or Gujarat, but for law enforcement agencies across India. It serves as a stern reminder that Section 144 of the CrPC is an extraordinary power meant for urgent situations, not a routine administrative tool to curb civil liberties. The power must be exercised with due caution, based on concrete evidence of a tangible threat, and must be limited in duration.
The judgment underscores the judiciary's role as a guardian of constitutional rights, ensuring that executive authority is not exercised arbitrarily. It mandates that any future imposition of Section 144 must be preceded by a thorough, case-specific evaluation of the circumstances, with clearly recorded reasons that justify the curtailment of fundamental rights. This decision is seen as a victory for civil liberty activists and a reinforcement of the democratic right to peaceful assembly and protest.
