British-era Section 144 may have lost its relevance

Violence erupted despite prohibitory being in force, putting a question mark on imposition of Section 144

rahul

Rahul Dass | August 26, 2017 | New Delhi


#Gurmeet Ram Rahim   #Dera Sacha Sauda   #Uttar Pradesh   #Delhi   #Haryana   #Section 144   #violence   #Ram Manohar Lohia  
GN Photo
GN Photo

 Despite prohibitory orders being imposed in Haryana, including Panchkula, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, violence broke out after Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim was convicted in a rape case.

Has the British-era Section 144 lost its effectiveness?
 
Section 144 of the CrPC is said to have been first used around 1861 in the State of Baroda by E.F. Deboo and was thereafter regularly enforced to put down protests by freedom fighters during the British Raj. Post-independence, this section was also used quite frequently to maintain public order.
 
This section empowers an executive magistrate to prohibit an assembly of more than four people in an area.
 
To the common people, the imposition of Section 144 sometimes make little or no sense. When you take a crowded bus or the packed metro, you unintentionally end up violating prohibitory orders.
 
Though there were prohibitory orders in Noida, people watched movies at malls. They too violated Section 144.
 
Even in the busy markets, at any given point of time, people can be found milling around. They are oblivious to orders that say they can’t be gathered at a spot.
 
Let’s take another example. A meeting of residents of a high-rise building was held in Gurgaon to discuss issues pertaining to maintenance. Over a 100 residents turned up. So, were they violating orders?
 
While we continue to cling to this British era legacy, the Britishers themselves have gone on to modify it.
 
Britain’s Public Order Act 1986 says: “Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.”
 
In India, Section 144 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 says that in cases where, “in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray”.
 
Over 50 years back, the action under Section 144 was challenged in court.
 
In Ram Manohar Lohia And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors, the Allahabad high court on March 15, 1967  dismissed a petition that said Section 144 which relates to disturbance of the public tranquillity or a riot or an affray be struck down as unconstitutional.
 
The petition was a writ of habeas corpus by seven persons, including parliamentarian Ram Manohar Lohia, who were confined as undertrial prisoners in the district jail of Agra.
 
“A public meeting in connection with the observance of UP Bundh Day had been arranged to be held in the evening of July 11, 1966 in Phulatti Bazar, Agra and it was to be addressed by Ram Manohar Lohia. Lohia arrived at Rajamandi Railway Station Agra in the afternoon of July 11, 1966 by the Toofan Express and when he came out of the railway station he was arrested by the police. The other petitioners, who were present at the railway station to receive Lohia, were also arrested by the police at the same time. These arrests were for alleged violation of the above order of the District Magistrate of Agra.”
 
The court observed that while on the one hand the necessity for the right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peaceably and without arms in a democracy is there, “it cannot be denied that this right itself cannot be properly exercised by all without permitting a law which imposes reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order”.
 
One hundred and fifty years is too long a period of time since Section 144 has been in use. Times have changed dramatically since the section was introduced and it may no longer be as effective as it was then. The violence on Friday indicates that the legislators need to take a close look at it.
 

Comments

 

Other News

Women’s panel seeks CJI intervention over rape-murder convict’s penalty

The Maharashtra State Commission for Women has urged the chief justice of India to take suo moto action in the matter of the Bombay high court converting to life imprisonment the death sentence of the two persons convicted for the brutal rape and murder of a Pune BPO executive in 2008. Chall

BSE StAR MF achieves 61% share of equity net inflow for November

BSE StAR MF, India`s largest mutual funds distributor platform, is working on ways to transform itself into a unique end-to-end value-based services platform. It has achieved 61% share of equity net inflows (Rs 802.96 crore out of Rs 1311.65 crore) for the month November 2019.   “T

Thackeray keeps home with Shiv Sena, NCP gets finance, Cong revenue

Two weeks after the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) came to power in Maharashtra on November 28 following a month-long political tug of war, chief minister Uddhav Thackerey has announced cabinet portfolios, keeping the home department for his Shiv Sena party, while giving the allies NCP and the Congress finance an

Parliament passes Citizenship amendment bill

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 has been cleared by parliament, as the Upper House on Wednesday passed the legislation that seeks to grant Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from three neighbouring countries. “A landmark day for India and our nation’s ethos of compassion an

Lok Sabha passes the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill

After a day-long debate which often turned acrimonious, the Lok Sabha has passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019, seeking to provide citizenship to non-Muslims from three neighbouring countries who have migrated to India.   Prime minister Narendra Modi said he was “delighted&

Citizenship bill in Lok Sabha, triggers debate

Home minister Amit Shah on Monday introduced in the Lok Sabha the Citizenship Amendment Bill, triggering a long-ranging debate on the ideas of India, with the opposition parties claiming it was regressive. The bill seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim citizens of the neighbouring Pakista



Archives

Current Issue

Video

CM Nitish’s convoy attacked in Buxar

Opinion

Facebook    Twitter    Google Plus    Linkedin    Subscribe Newsletter

Twitter