AMIT SAHNI V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.

Abstract

This case comment examines the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, which addressed the constitutional limits of protest rights following the prolonged Shaheen Bagh anti-CAA demonstrations. The 100-day protest, while exercising fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), resulted in complete blockade of public roads, raising critical questions about balancing individual rights with collective public interest. The three-judge bench’s decision established that no fundamental right is absolute and that indefinite occupation of public spaces cannot be permitted without considering broader democratic values. The analysis evaluates the court’s proportionality-based approach to constitutional adjudication while critically examining the judgment’s implications for future protest movements and democratic expression. While the decision provides necessary guidance for managing the tension between fundamental rights and public order, it also highlights significant deficiencies in India’s legal framework governing public protests. The comment argues that the judgment represents both judicial wisdom in constitutional balancing and appropriate institutional restraint in politically sensitive matters, though it underscores the urgent need for comprehensive legislative reforms to address structural gaps in protest regulation and rights enforcement mechanisms.

Keywords: Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Right to Protest, Article 19, Public Order, Democratic Expression, Proportionality Test

Citation: Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., (2020) 10 SCC 573¹
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Krishna Murari
Date of Judgment: October 7, 2020

Facts

This significant constitutional case arose from the prolonged anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests at Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi, which continued for over 100 days from December 2019 to March 2020. The protests, primarily led by women from the Muslim community, involved complete blockade of Road 13A (Delhi-Noida link road), causing severe inconvenience to daily commuters and disrupting normal public life.

The petitioner, Amit Sahni, approached the Supreme Court seeking removal of protesters from the public road, arguing that while the right to protest is fundamental, it cannot be exercised in a manner that violates others’ rights and disrupts public order. The protesters, however, maintained that their demonstration was peaceful and constituted a legitimate exercise of their fundamental right to assembly and expression under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The case gained national attention as it represented the classic conflict between individual fundamental rights and collective public interest. The protests had become a symbol of resistance against the CAA, with participants claiming the legislation was discriminatory and violated constitutional principles of equality and secularism.¹ Meanwhile, thousands of daily commuters faced significant hardship due to traffic diversions and increased travel time, with reports indicating that “the protest site had become a major bottleneck affecting lakhs of commuters daily.”²

The matter reached the apex court when local authorities failed to resolve the impasse through negotiations. The case raised fundamental questions about the scope and limitations of the right to protest in a democracy, the balance between individual rights and public order, and the role of courts in adjudicating politically sensitive matters involving constitutional rights.

Issues Raised

The case presented several crucial constitutional and legal questions requiring comprehensive judicial examination and authoritative determination.

The primary issue concerned the constitutional limits of the right to protest under Article 19(1)(b). The court needed to determine whether indefinite occupation of public spaces for protests falls within the protected sphere of fundamental rights or constitutes an unreasonable restriction on others’ rights to free movement and access to public amenities.

Another significant question involved the application of the reasonable restrictions doctrine under Article 19(2). The court had to examine whether the state’s inaction in clearing public roads could be justified under constitutional provisions, and what constitutes “reasonable restrictions” in the context of prolonged public protests.

The temporal dimension of protest rights also required clarification. The case raised questions about whether there are constitutional limits to the duration of protests, and if so, what factors should courts consider in determining reasonable time limits for public demonstrations.

The matter further involved examining the balance between fundamental rights and public order. The court needed to address whether the right to protest, though fundamental, could override other citizens’ rights to use public facilities and the state’s duty to maintain law and order.

Finally, the case raised broader questions about judicial intervention in politically sensitive matters and the appropriate role of courts in balancing competing constitutional rights without overstepping into the domain of executive policy-making.

Contention

The parties presented fundamentally opposing perspectives on the nature and limits of constitutional rights in a democratic society.

Petitioner’s Position: Amit Sahni argued that while the Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, this right cannot be exercised indefinitely in public spaces to the detriment of other citizens’ fundamental rights. He contended that “the prolonged occupation of public roads violated the right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) and caused disproportionate hardship to the general public.”¹¹ The petitioner emphasized that democracy requires balancing of rights, and no fundamental right, including the right to protest, is absolute. He further argued that the state’s failure to maintain public order raised concerns about ensuring citizens’ safety and free movement, extending from broader public order considerations under constitutional governance.

Protesters’ Arguments: The respondents, including protest organizers and civil rights activists, maintained that their demonstration was peaceful and fell squarely within the protection of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). They argued that “the protest was a legitimate response to allegedly discriminatory legislation and represented the constitutional right of citizens to dissent against government policies.”¹² The protesters contended that moving the demonstration to designated spaces would “dilute its effectiveness and impact, thereby undermining the very purpose of democratic protest.”¹³ They emphasized that historically significant protests, including those during the independence movement, often involved similar occupation of public spaces.

State’s Position: Government representatives argued that while they respected citizens’ right to protest, maintaining public order and ensuring smooth functioning of urban infrastructure remained paramount state responsibilities. They contended that “the protests had disrupted essential services and caused significant economic losses,” justifying state intervention to relocate the demonstration.¹⁴

Rationale

The Supreme Court’s judgment rested on several fundamental constitutional principles while attempting to balance competing rights and interests in a democratic framework.

Fundamental Rights are Not Absolute: The court firmly established that no fundamental right, including the right to protest, is absolute.¹⁵ The judgment emphasized that fundamental rights must be exercised within constitutional boundaries and cannot override other citizens’ equally valid rights.¹⁶ This principle reinforced the constitutional framework’s inherent system of checks and balances.

Public Spaces and Democratic Expression: While acknowledging that public spaces have historically served as venues for democratic expression, the court clarified that “democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places.”¹⁷ The judgment recognized that democracy functions through accommodation of diverse interests rather than absolute assertion of individual rights.

Balancing Approach and Reasonableness: The court adopted a balancing approach akin to proportionality analysis, evaluating whether the means adopted (indefinite road blockade) were reasonable considering the inconvenience caused to the general public. ¹⁸ The judgment found that the occupation of Road 13A was “not acceptable” as it caused significant inconvenience to lakhs of people and that the method of protest should not become a nuisance for citizens.¹⁹

Rights with Responsibilities: The decision emphasized that constitutional rights come with corresponding duties and responsibilities. ²⁰ The court noted that exercising fundamental rights in a manner that significantly impacts others’ rights undermines the constitutional framework’s collaborative spirit and that there cannot be indefinite protests in common areas.

Democratic Alternatives: The court suggested that democratic societies provide multiple avenues for expressing dissent, and that citizens should explore other constitutional means of protest rather than indefinite occupation of public infrastructure.²¹

Defects of Law

The judgment, while addressing immediate concerns, highlighted several structural deficiencies in existing legal frameworks governing public protests and fundamental rights.

Lack of Comprehensive Protest Regulation Framework: Indian law lacks specific comprehensive legislation governing the conduct of protests, their duration limits, and permissible locations. This absence creates uncertainty about the boundaries of legitimate protest and leaves courts to make ad-hoc determinations without clear statutory guidance.

Inadequate Balancing Mechanism: Current constitutional jurisprudence provides limited guidance for courts to systematically balance competing fundamental rights when they conflict. The absence of structured tests or criteria leads to subjective judicial interpretations that may vary across different courts and cases.

Enforcement Challenges: Existing legal provisions offer inadequate mechanisms for enforcing court orders regarding protest regulation. The gap between judicial declarations and practical enforcement remains a persistent problem in maintaining constitutional balance.

Definitional Ambiguity: Key concepts like “reasonable restrictions,” “public order,” and “indefinite protest” lack precise legal definitions. This ambiguity creates interpretation challenges and inconsistent application across different jurisdictions and factual scenarios.

Limited Preventive Measures: Current law focuses primarily on post-facto remedies rather than establishing preventive frameworks that could facilitate legitimate protest while protecting public interests. This reactive approach often results in prolonged conflicts that could have been avoided through better regulatory mechanisms.

Judicial vs. Executive Role Confusion: The case highlighted ongoing confusion about the respective roles of judiciary and executive in managing public order situations involving fundamental rights. This jurisdictional ambiguity can lead to delayed responses and inconsistent approaches to similar situations.

Inference

This landmark constitutional judgment carries profound implications for the future of democratic rights, public order management, and judicial approach to politically sensitive constitutional questions in India.

Constitutional Jurisprudence Evolution: The decision represents a significant development in Indian constitutional law by establishing clearer boundaries for the exercise of fundamental rights in public spaces. By refusing to treat any right as absolute, the court has strengthened the constitutional framework’s internal coherence and reinforced the principle that rights must be exercised responsibly within a broader democratic framework.

Practical Impact on Future Protests: The judgment provides clearer guidelines for protest organizers, law enforcement agencies, and courts dealing with similar situations. The emphasis on proportionality and time-bound nature of protests should help prevent indefinite occupation of public spaces while preserving legitimate avenues for democratic expression.

Judicial Restraint vs. Activism Debate: The decision demonstrates the court’s attempt to balance activist intervention with institutional restraint. While the court intervened to protect competing constitutional rights, it avoided making broad political statements about the underlying legislation, thereby maintaining judicial neutrality in politically charged matters.

Democratic Discourse Enhancement: By emphasizing alternative avenues for democratic expression, the judgment encourages more diverse and inclusive forms of political participation. This approach should strengthen democratic institutions by preventing any single form of protest from monopolizing public discourse.

Administrative Policy Implications: The decision highlights the need for proactive administrative policies regarding protest management. Government agencies must develop comprehensive frameworks for facilitating legitimate protests while maintaining public order and protecting citizens’ other fundamental rights. This includes establishing designated protest areas, clear time limits, and transparent procedures for protest permissions.

Civil Society and Democratic Engagement: The judgment encourages civil society organizations and protest movements to adopt more diverse and inclusive forms of democratic engagement. Rather than relying solely on physical occupation of public spaces, the decision promotes exploration of alternative methods such as digital campaigns, public meetings, legal challenges, and parliamentary advocacy.

Law Enforcement Guidelines: The case provides clearer guidelines for law enforcement agencies dealing with similar situations. Police forces now have judicial backing for reasonable crowd management measures while being required to respect citizens’ fundamental rights to peaceful assembly and expression.

Future Constitutional Challenges: While providing immediate clarity, the judgment raises longer-term questions about the scope of judicial intervention in fundamental rights matters. Future cases will likely test the boundaries established by this decision and may require further refinement of the balance between individual rights and collective interests.

Long-term Constitutional Development: The judgment contributes to the evolving understanding of constitutional rights in contemporary India. By establishing that fundamental rights must be exercised with consideration for others’ rights and broader democratic values, the decision strengthens the constitutional framework’s internal coherence and promotes a more mature approach to rights discourse in Indian society.

Comparative Constitutional Analysis: When viewed alongside international precedents from established democracies, the Amit Sahni judgment aligns with global trends toward balanced constitutional adjudication. Similar approaches in jurisdictions like Canada, Australia, and South Africa demonstrate that constitutional maturity requires moving beyond absolutist interpretations of rights toward more nuanced, contextual analysis that considers competing interests and democratic values.

The Amit Sahni case thus represents a crucial milestone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, providing practical guidance for managing the tension between fundamental rights and public order while establishing important precedents for future constitutional adjudication. Its emphasis on proportionality, responsibility, and democratic accommodation creates a framework that should guide courts, administrators, and citizens in navigating similar conflicts between individual rights and collective interests in India’s vibrant democracy. The judgment’s lasting contribution lies not in restricting democratic expression but in ensuring that such expression occurs within a framework that respects the rights and dignity of all citizens in a diverse democratic society.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

• Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police & Ors., (2020) 10 SCC 573
• Constitution of India, 1950
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1981) Supp SCC 87
• Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 594
• Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166

Articles and Journals

• Austin G, ‘The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation’ (1966) Oxford University Press
• Baxi U, ‘The Little Done, The Vast Undone: Reflections on Reading Granville Austin’s The Indian Constitution’ (1967) 13 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 323
• Bhargava R, ‘Democratic Vision of a New Republic: India, 1950’ in Francine R Frankel and others (eds), Transforming India: Social and Political Dynamics of Democracy (Oxford University Press 2000)
• Chiriyankandath J, ‘Creating a Secular State in a Religious Country: The Debate in the Indian Constituent Assembly’ (2000) 38 Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 1

Books and Monographs

• Bhatia A, ‘The Shaheen Bagh Judgment: On Balancing Rights and Enforcing the Constitution’ (2020) Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog
• Divan A and Rosencranz A, Environmental Law and Policy in India (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2019)
• Krishnaswamy S, Democracy and Constitutionalism in India (Oxford University Press 2009)
• Mehta PB, ‘The Burden of Democracy’ (Penguin Books 2003)
• Rajagopal A, ‘Politics After Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India’ (Cambridge University Press 2001)
• Rudolph LI and Rudolph SH, ‘In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State’ (University of Chicago Press 1987)
• Sen A, ‘The Idea of Justice’ (Harvard University Press 2009)
• Subramaniam N, ‘Constitutional Law of India’ (5th edn, Eastern Book Company 2016)