Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madras High Court in the matter of Simon and Ors. v. State has held that public assembling and demonstrating against police will not be considered as an offence when there is no prohibitory order under the provisions of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 (CrPC).

What was the Background of Simon and Ors. v. State Case?

• The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant namely, one Surenthirakumar, who is working as the Village Administrative Officer, lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that on 10^th April 2022 at about 11.30 a.m., the petitioners conducted the first anniversary of one Silambarasan, who died following a police chase and torture on 07^th April 2021.
• They conducted continuous demonstrations in front of the statue with a very small number of people.
• Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent police obtained a complaint from the Village Administrative Officer and registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Thereafter, a criminal petition was filed before the High Court of Madras for quashing of the FIR against the petitioners.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the FIR.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Justice M Dhandapani observed that at the relevant point of time, there is no prohibitory order prohibiting the general public to assemble in a particular area. In the absence of prohibitory order under Section 144 of the CrPC, assembling few persons in front of the statue and making a demonstration as against the respondent police will not amount to commission of the offence.
• It was further stated that when there is no prohibitory order existing under Section144 CrPC, there was no illegality in a few people assembling and demonstrating against the police and the same would not constitute an offence.

What is Section 144 of CrPC?

About:

• This Section deals with the power to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
• This Section empowers the magistrate of any State or Union Territory in India to pass an order prohibiting the gathering of four or more people in a specified area.
• It is imposed in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger of some event that has the potential to cause trouble or damage to human life or property.
• This order can be passed against a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.

Purpose:

• The ultimate purpose of Section 144 is to maintain peace and order in the areas where trouble could erupt to disrupt the regular life.
• It prevents, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray.

Essential Elements:

• It places restrictions on handling or transporting any kind of weapon in the given jurisdiction. The maximum punishment for such an act is three years.
• According to the order under this section, there shall be no movement of public and all educational institutions shall also remain closed.
• Further, there will be a complete bar on holding any kind of public meeting or rallies during the period of operation of this order.
• It is deemed a punishable offence to obstruct law enforcement agencies from disbanding an unlawful assembly.
• It also empowers the authorities to block internet access in the region.

Duration:

• No order under this section can remain in force for a period of more than 2 months.
• Under the State government’s discretion, it can choose to extend the validity for two more months with the maximum validity extendable to six months.
• Once the situation becomes normal, Section 144 levied can be withdrawn.

Case Law:

• In the case of Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 144 of CrPC. The Court said that “law may be abused” is no reason to strike it down. It further ruled that the restrictions imposed through this section cannot be held to be violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression.