The Constitution of India

Article 19 (1)(b)
Defination: Freedom to Assemble Peaceably and Without Arms: This provision allows
citizens to gather peacefully without weapons. This right is also subjected to reasonable
restrictions in the interest of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

Explaination:
 This right allows citizens to gather peacefully without weapons. It is the foundation of
any democratic society, allowing for public meetings, processions, and demonstrations.
This article defines that the constitution guarantees right to hold meetings and take out
processions. The processions and meetings should be unarmed and peaceful. However,
this right does not protect violent gatherings or those that carry weapons. This right may
be restricted in the interest of the public order or sovereignty and integrity of the country.

 Here the restriction explains that the assembly must be non-violent and must not cause
any breach of public peace and if the assembly is disorderly or riotous, then it is not
protected under Article 19 (1) (b) and reasonable restrictions can be imposed under
clause (3) of Article 19 in the Interests of sovereignty and Integrity of India or public
order.

Case laws/illustrations:
Case: Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner, Bombay 1
Year: 1972
Facts of the case: The appellant sought permission from the Police Commissioner to hold a
public meeting in Ahmedabad, related to the All India students' strike. The first application was
denied for not meeting the notification's timing requirement. A second application was rejected
due to concerns about maintaining law and order based on past incidents. The appellant filed a
writ petition, challenging the denial and seeking to declare certain sections of the Bombay Police
Act and Rules for Procession and Public Meetings void. The petition also sought the right to
conduct public meetings without obtaining prior permission from authorities.
Legal issues and question raised: Whether Powers of the Police Commissioner under Bombay
Police Act, 1951 is violative of Fundamental Rights of the citizens to hold public meetings under
Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution?
Arguments of the Parties: The appellant party argue that the denial of giving permission for the
peaceful public meetings and processions in Ahmadabad was an infringement upon their
fundamental rights under Part III Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution whereas the opposite party
of government authority presented the arguments related to the need for permission before these
public meetings as well as given the reason for refusal of giving permission on ground of public
order, safety, and prevention of potential disturbances based on past incidents.
Court Analysis and decision: It was analysed by the Apex Court that while the right to
assemble could be regulated before the Constitution came into force, post-constitution, this right
cannot be restricted except through reasonable regulations. The requirement of obtaining prior
permission for a public meeting on a public street is considered legitimate under Article 19(1)(b),
as it is not an absolute right. However, Rule 7, which grants discretionary powers to the
authorized officer without providing guidelines, was deemed unconstitutional as it lacked clarity
and could lead to arbitrary decisions. Other rules related to the procedure for obtaining
permission were also impacted by this decision. The court emphasized that the power to regulate
public meetings is valid, but it should be guided by definite standards to avoid arbitrary use.
Judgement: The Supreme Court struck down a rule that empowered the police commissioner to
impose a total ban on all public meetings and processions. It was also held that the state could
only make regulations in aid of the right of assembly of citizens and could impose reasonable
restrictions in the interest of public order but no rule could be prescribed prohibiting all meetings
or processions altogether.
Case: Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police2
Year: 2020
Facts of the case: In December 2019, the Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act,
leading to nationwide protests. Lawyer-activist Amit Sahni filed a writ petition in the Delhi High
Court, expressing concern over road blockages in Shaheen Bagh due to protests. The court
directed authorities to address the issue without compromising law and order. As the situation
persisted, Sahni appealed to the Supreme Court in January 2020. Despite appointing mediators,
their efforts failed. Supporters of the protestors intervened, citing their right to freedom of speech
and assembly under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution.
Legal issues and question raised: Whether the Right to assemble is absolute and Whether the
protestors can occupy public places indefinitely?
Arguments of the Parties: The petitioner argued that the right to protest is not absolute and
should have reasonable restrictions. They highlighted issues during the Shaheen Bagh protest,
including the presence of a large replica of India Gate and the Map of India blocking public
roads, impeding commuters' mobility. The petitioner contended that the blockage caused
inconvenience and disrupted traffic flow, emphasizing the importance of public order and
smooth traffic. Despite an appeal to the Delhi High Court, which directed action, no change
occurred. As a result, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, seeking a resolution to the
ongoing situation whereas the respondents responded that citizens have constitutional rights to
freedom of speech, removing protestors would be inappropriate as it goes against these
constitutional guarantees. Additionally, the authorities stated that the High Court directed them
to act in the public interest and maintain law and order. Despite having the power to vacate the
site if the situation changed, they noted that the Shaheen Bagh protest remained peaceful without
agitations or violence.
Court Analysis and decision The Court emphasized the significance of peaceful protests in a
democracy, recognizing the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
While acknowledging the State's duty to maintain law and order, the Court stressed that
restrictions on these rights should be based on clear evidence of potential harm, and denying
permission should be a last resort. The judgment emphasized that the authorities have a
responsibility to act appropriately, and results must follow their actions. "Amit Sahni vs.
Commissioner of Police and Others" underscores the importance of preserving fundamental
rights while striking a balance between public order and the right to peaceful dissent.

Judgement: The Supreme Court of India held that public protests and demonstrations expressing
dissent must only be organized in designated places. Accepting this contention, the Court ruled
that despite the existence of the right to peaceful protest against legislation, public ways and
public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely. It held that the rights to freedom of expression and
protest under Article 19 of the Constitution are subject to reasonable restrictions pertaining to the
sovereignty and integrity of India, public order and to the regulation by the concerned police
authorities.

1. https://www.aapkaconsultant.com/blog/permission-to-be-taken-from-government-authority-not-in-violation-of-fundamental-right/?amp=1
2. https://theamikusqriae.com/amit-sahni-vs-commissioner-of-police-and-ors/