Right To Protest Can't Be Asserted And Practised In Vacuum; Social Cause Needed, Not Personal Agenda: Calcutta High Court

"Such right (Right to Protest) can neither be asserted nor practiced in the vacuum. There has to be a social cause and not a personal agenda," the Calcutta High Court observed recently.

The bench of Justice Shampa Sarkar was hearing the plea of one Vineet Ruia, who is the president of an organization known as Bharat Bachao Sangathan who wished to hold protests against the private unaided schools that are charging exorbitant fees.

He made a prayer before the Officer-in-Charge, Hare Street Police Station, for the necessary permission to undertake the protest for 30 days, beginning from June 24, 2022, with a further option to extend the period.

He stated that the expected strength of such protestors would be 200 to 500 on weekdays and 40,000 to 50,000 on weekends. However, the same was not allowed, therefore, he moved to the High Court.

Before the Court, the police authorities submitted that assembly near the metro channel could not be allowed as it would hamper the smooth movement of the vehicles. It was further told to the Court that a crowd of 40,000 to 50,000 protestors cannot be handled for 30 days or more by the police authorities, and as such, permission cannot be granted

Court's observations

Having gone through the writ petition, the Court noted that on the basis of a vague statement that a protest for 30 days or more having an assembly of 200 to 50,000 people would be organised, a writ of mandamus can not be issued upon the police.

"How the petitioner is interested in such issue, who are the persons whose cause he is espousing and whether such protest would be in the aid of 3 securing social justice or not, are neither pleaded nor urged. Right to protest has been accepted as a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression, but the Court is not convinced about the intention of the petitioner. Such right can neither be asserted nor practised in the vacuum. There has to be a social cause and not a personal agenda. It is not evident from the pleadings, whether the petitioner is protesting on behalf of a certain class of parents or students. Vague and insufficient pleadings, does not impress the court. Moreover, it is well settled that the authority can impose regulatory measures and the police authorities are of the view that Dharmatala, Metro Channel cannot be the location for a protest which would carry on for more than a month, with an expected crowd between 200 to 50,000 persons," the Court further reasoned.

Lastly, the Court found justification in the denial of the permission to the petitioner to hold protest as the Court said that it was within the domain of the administration to take a decision to regulate and impose reasonable restrictions on the request of the petitioner to hold the protest on a public street.

"Harassment to the commuters and the business men operating from the area in question, cannot be permitted nor can the petitioner paralyse the activities in the main business area of the city, in the name of a protest. The writ petition is devoid of any pleadings, as to why the petitioner thought it fit to carry out a protest by organizing an assembly of a huge number of people in front of the metro channel in Kolkata," the Court remarked as it diposed of the plea.

Case title - Vineet Ruia VS The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 280

Click Here To Read/Download Order