RUPINDER SINGH ~ODHI AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-1983-1-841-843
Decision dates shown here are day-precision where the judgment's own text states a date the extractor is confident in, and year only otherwise -- never a fabricated day. See the editorial policy for how dates are extracted.
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
111ttatfons-Extent of. t' . . t' c In the wake of a threatened Morcha by Aka lis which was to coincide with the inauguration of the Asian Games at Delhi, sorne States apprehended that the Morcha might interfere with the holding of the games and toolr measures to intercept the .movement of Akalis to Delhi. On the question raised by the petiiionors that placing of obstructions on highways so as to impede free flow ot traffic was per se unlawful, D :
Held
No one is entitled to barricade a highway so as to prevent mtmbers of the public from using It while they arc on their lawful ':Jusiness in 1be pursuit of normal avocations of life. But tho police, whose duty it is to enforce law and order in the wnkc of threatened mass agitations which are rmonably hkely to lead to breach of public peace, are entitled in the disc:hargc ol tbat duty to impose reasonable restraints on the physical movement of Jll(mbe11 of the public to protect public properly and to avoid needless in- E convenience to other citizens in their lawful pursuits. But all such restraints oa personal libeny, if at all, bave to be commensurate with tbc object which furo4hea their justification, They must be minimal and ca~not exceed conuraints of. the particular siluatioo, either in nature or in duratton. Above all, they cannot he used as engines or oppression, persecution, harassment or the like. The sanctity of person and of privacy bas to be J_Daintained at all costs and that cannot ever be violuted under the guise or maJOteouoce of law and order. The rule or law ~cquires that no person shall be subj~ted to ~arsb, UnciVI'IIzed or discriminatory treatment even when t hcob'jeCt've 1 is the secunog of tbe Paramount e~igcncies of law and order. [842:P-H; 843-A·G)
Report as printed — headnote and judgment are not separated on this page
-- -........: -·~ - ,..·.·
f·.. I . i;., . ' ' 84! A
November 18, 1982 B i .; [Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.N. SI!N, J.i i I . ~· · Freedom of movement on Hicllways-Reasonable teltrainr1 durint mas1 I
0 itlGlNAL JURISDICTION ; Wrl.t Pelt'tt'on N·'s. v 8816 and 8817 ' or 1982. . . G . i l
(Under. Article 32 of the Constitution of lndia) · , for the Petitioner. Hardev Singh and Bishambhar La/ Kr1allna .,·i i 8 i II Mrs. $. Dikslrlt . ~
· K.G. Bhagat Addl So!·Geo.1 R.Nt Poddar and I f · orRespondents 3 and 4. • : . 1 t •I ! ! I ~
:1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198) ) l s.c.t_ . I 11 .. The Order of the Court was delivered by
· 1 CoANDRACHUD, c.J• . By these writ petitions, the . petitioners .
some of whom are practising lawyers . and . d'some. Members . of tb'e Parliament, ask for an approprtate ·wnt . trectmg the State of Haryana and the.State of Uttar Pradesh to remove all ob!ltructions B on the highways and to allo~ unhin~ered and .uninterc~pte.d the use . of highways1 railways and atrways w1thout mak~n~ any dtscrtmination against tbe.Akali Sikhs on th~ grou~d of rehg10n. Stated ·briefly, the case of the petitioners IS that ID the recent past, a movement . . was set afoot . in the State of Punjab consequent upon certain de~ands made by the members of the Akali ' Party and as a result a of that movement, large scale arrests of Sikhs were effected, bordering . ··a n harassment and persecution. It would appear that a declaration '·was made by certain Akali leaders that a Morcba would be taken 'to Delhi on November 19, 1982 which coincides with the inaguration of the Asiad games. Apprehending that the Morcha will interfere with the holding of the games, the border . States, particulariy . D Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, appear to have taken certain measures to intercept the movement of Akalis across the border on to Delhi with a ·view to ensuring that the proposed Morcha is not staged in ·the manner feared and the Asiad not disrupted. .
B Mi. Hardev Singh who appears on behalf of the petitioners argues that highways are dedicated to the public and are meant for their · use for passin~ and repassing. Therefore, he argues, no obstruction can be placed thereon which will impede the free fiow of traffic, any such obstruction being per se unlawful. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr. HardeY ·Singh, we agree that no one is entitled to barricade a highway so as to prevent members of the public from using it while they arc on their lawful business in the pursuit of normal avocations of life, But the police, whose duty it is to enforce law and order in the • . wake of threatened inass agitations which are reasonably likely to lead to ~reach of public peace, are entitled in the discharge of that G duty to tm~ose reasonable restraints on the physical movement of members ot the public in order to the protection of public propertY an~ the avoidance of needless inconvenience to other citizens~ ·.C ' tbe1r lawful pursuits. But all such restraints on personalliber~Y· if at ~ 11 •• ha~e to be ·commensurate with the object which furDJShes H the1r JUstification. . . . 1 and cannot exceed the They must be mlntma . . cdonst~amts of the particular situation either . in nature or tO urahon. Above 8 11• t hey cannot be used' as engines of opprc:ssioO,
[: I I auLii-IPER s.INClH v. UNION OF INDIA (Chundrachud, C.J.) · 843 !, .. :1,. tion harassment or the like. The sanctity of . I ....rsecU ' . • d r, y baS to be ma111tame at all costs and that c nvac . . person and of an not ever be A ;... .T P violated under the gUJse ._o f mamtenance of Jaw and order. _ r 1· t· i'
We. feel uneasy. and · concerned to hear that pol'Icemen or I li I I·[ cer!B States have in . . VIolated .. the f h norms .uf decency in the'1r dea1•sng 'th 11'1 the situation artSmg • out o t e Akah-Asiad • tangle• we assume B 1 I for Jack of better evidence ~hat the gn~vance made by the petitioners 1· I ! before us is plOre_the ~~spnng of a natural feeling of resentment at ~ing stopped and ~earcbed . than 0~ any substantial invasion of ' their personal freed?m. )f and when there is proof of tatter, Courts oiay have to step m and stop the excesses. · But the rule of law 1- requires that no person shall . be subjected to harsh, uncivilised or c discriminatory . treatment . even when tbe objective is the securing of the paramount exigencies of law a~d order. Therefore, no. Sikh can be allowed to be so treated if our Constitution has to have any :· meaning and effect.
_-We believe it not to be true that any Chief Minister has made a 0 I
public declaration that police officers who will treat the Akali Sikhs barsbly will be dealt with lightly·. It is incredible that any highly '1! I placed person in his senses can possibly make such a Statement, I -·J I with the kind or pressure of public opinion and the press which, fortunately, we have in our count~ to-day. · I E i 1· • There does not appear to be any executive order in existence, -1 l in writing at any rate, authorising the police to barricade any high· way or to subject every Sikh in motion~to physical restraint. But in . an appropriate case, a presumption may well be drawn as to the ! existence of such an order if it is found that the police are generally acting systematically according to a set and uniform pattern or are F .·I ~t~erwise engaged in a large scale operation of an! similar or i. IJDJster kind. For want of acceptable evidence, we hesitate to _dr~w I that presumption in this case and will leave' the matter where It h~s I ~or . t~e time being. Redress may, if so advised, be sought 10 IDdJvJduaJ cases by those aggrieved by the· alleged acts of excesses. G . I . ' I . .r This order will dispose of these writ petitions. i. l
li.t.c. H ! 'j \! i I )
\!
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0