When the government attempted to repress a peaceful group of protestors who were sleeping in the Ramlila Maidan by enforcing section 144 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Supreme Court took up the issue suo moto. At 12:30 pm, the protest site was evacuated using water cannons, tear gas, and other methods, which left numerous people injured and one person dead.
ramlila maidan v home secretary union of india Case Facts
- Over a million people attended a protest against corruption that Baba Ramdev and his supporters organized on February 27, 2011, at Ramlila Maidan in New Delhi. A few months later, Baba Ramdev received permission to use the venue to host a yoga camp.
- After thereafter, on June 4, 2011, Baba Ramdev announced his intention to protest against corruption and obtained authorization to demonstrate his disapproval at Jantar Mantar without drawing more than 200 people.
- However, on the fourth, he planned a protest and its gathering in the Ramlila Maidan, where over 50,000 people protested alongside a hunger strike, rather than planning a yoga training camp.
- When a group of police officers saw this, they went to meet with Baba Ramdev and informed him that the authorization he had obtained for the camp would be revoked.
- Following that, Baba Ramdev was arrested and the demonstration was put to an end by the Delhi police, the Central Reserve Police Force, and the Rapid Action Force.
- Numerous weapons, including water cannons, batons, and tear gas, were used to break up the protest and scatter the crowd. Nearly all of Baba Ramdev’s followers departed from Ramlila Maidan. After vanishing from the dais, Baba Ramdev was taken into custody by the police close to the Ranjit Singh Flyover.
ramlila maidan v home secretary union of india Issues
- Whether authority granted by section 144 of the code of criminal procedure has been abused.
- Whether article 21 of the indian constitution, right to life includes the right to sleep.
- Whether the trust established by Ramdev Baba was negligent in part.
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- The organizers claimed that Article 19(1)(b) guaranteed them the basic right to peaceful assembly and protest.
- The protest was conducted in opposition to corruption and in favor of the adoption of strong anti-corruption laws that would be advantageous to the entire country.
- The demonstration did not advocate for violence and did not pose a risk to public safety or order.
Respondent:
- To ensure public safety, section 144 of the code of criminal procedure had to be implemented.
- It emphasized the need to stop any inconvenience that the gathering might have given the community.
ramlila maidan v home secretary union of india Judgment
- The Court examined whether the limitations imposed in this case were appropriate under Article 19(2), as well as their intent and reasonableness. Since the legislative determination of limits was not subject to judicial review, the Court determined that it was final and conclusive.
- The Court also talked on the difference between restricting and prohibiting a right, with the latter norm only being applicable where there is no other suitable option. Any restriction imposed under section 144 of the code of criminal procedure would need to be reasonable; it couldn’t be arbitrary or overly onerous, and it would need to have a clear and immediate connection to the goal being pursued.
- In the concurrence opinion, Justice B.S. Chauhan addressed the sleeping people’s right to privacy and said that it will be safeguarded under the Constitution. He believed that sleep was so vital to life, one of the fundamental necessities, that going without it would be misery, both mentally and physically.
- A person’s human rights would be violated if their right to sleep were taken away, and their fundamental rights would be violated if any disturbance was purposefully, illegally, and without cause. He continued by talking about how everyone has the fundamental right to privacy guaranteed by article 21 of the indian constitution, and that no one’s private may be violated.
- Justice Chauhan went on to say that two fundamental rights were the right to privacy and the right to sleep. He cited the ruling in Ram Jethmalani & Ors. vs. Union of India as support for his claim that the State has a duty to defend sleeping people’s right to privacy against infringement and against social acts. He said that, even so, there were situations in which privacy might be restricted.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
