The Lawmatics Bulletin- 8

05-10-2020 to 11-10-2020

PUBLIC PLACES CANNOT BE OCCUPIED INDEFINITELY: SC

Amit Sahni vs. Commisioner of Police

While holding a batch of petitions pertaining to a road blockade at shaheen bagh over Citizenship Amendment Act,2019 in which petitioners claimed that the protests were blocking the roads, affecting the right of free movement of the public.
The bench comprising Justices S K Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari held that “Dissent and democracy go hand in hand but protests must be carried out in designated area” and stated that the Right to protest has to be balanced with the right of the people to use a public road
CASES ON RIGHT TO PROTEST
Anita Thakur V. Govt. of J&K, 2016
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case held that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution and the aforesaid right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, as well as public order.

State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Ayyakannu, 2018
In this case, Madras High Court had held that “Right to Protest” ends when the other Person’s “Right to Free Movement” and “Right to not to listen to” starts.

ALL THE OFFENCES UNDER NDPS ACT IS NON BAILABLE: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Rhea Chakraborty v. Union of India and others

While granting bail to Rhea Chakraborty, the Bombay High Court in the order granting bail to actor Rhea Chakraborty held that all offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, are non-bailable and also observed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that Rhea was not guilty of any offence punishable under Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS).
Section 27A of the Act relates to the offence of “financing illicit trade” and “harbouring” of a person engaged in such trade. This is a serious offence, punishable with a minimum of ten years imprisonment, and is mentioned as one of the offences under Section 37 which deals with rigours of grant of bail.
In the State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh(1999) the constitution bench of the apex court held that the NDPS offences were non-bailable.

GUJARAT HIGH COURT TO START UPLOADING ORDERS/JUDGEMENT IN THE GUJARATI LANGUAGE

The Gujarat High Court has decided to start the publication of select High Court Orders/Judgements in the Gujarati Language on the Gujarat High Court’s website. On Friday (2nd October) the Gujarat High Court issued a Press Release to this effect.

The Press Release reads,”As desired by Honourable the Chief Justice of High Court of Gujarat, Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and as further recommended by Honourable Judges of the Artificial Intelligence Committee of the High Court, Honourable the Chief Justice has been pleased to pass directions to start uploading one order/judgment of this High Court per working day in Gujarati language on the website of the High Court for the benefit of litigants and the general public.”
In July 2019, the Supreme Court had also started uploading the translated version of its judgments in regional languages.

NBSA IMPOSED FINE ON AAJ TAK AND OTHER NEWS CHANNELS FOR RUNNING INSENSITIVE REPORTING

The News Broadcasting Standards Authority(NBSA) imposed a fine of rupees one lakh on Aaj Tak, and directed electronic news channels like Zee News, News 24 and India TV to air an apology for insensitive reporting and sensationalizing the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput.
NBSA in its statement said that,”the Code of Ethics ensures that broadcasters will not violate the privacy of any person/individual and also Privacy is now recognised as a fundamental right by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a nine judge Bench judgment in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India & Ors. (2017)”.

EVERY CITIZEN HAVE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FRESH AIR: P&H HC

Jan Kalyan Samiti Vs. State of Haryana and others

By staying the decision of the Government of Haryana to convert public park into the residential area (in Faridabad Township area), the Punjab and Haryana High court on Tuesday (06th October) observed that every citizen has a fundamental right to fresh air and said the ecology and environment of the area would be affected drastically if the parks are converted into the residential area.
The Court was of the prima facie view that action of the respondent in converting Public Park into a residential area was unconstitutional and contrary to law. The residents of the Society have a fundamental right to free air and to enjoy the public amenities.

Legal World Sketch: