The High Court of Karnataka on Friday directed the State government and the Bengaluru city police to consider, as per law, fresh applications from groups of citizens seeking permissions for holding protest rallies against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) after the prohibitory order imposed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ends on December 21.
While stating that citizen groups can file fresh application within three days from December 21, the court said the State authorities will have to take a decision within three days from the date of receipt of the applications. Also, the court said that the city police will have to consider the need for continuing the prohibitory order through a fresh process.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur passed the order on a batch of petitions filed by Rajya Sabha Member M.V. Rajeev Gowda and several social activists questioning the legality of imposition of prohibitory order.
The petitioners alleged that the government had nullified the permissions granted under Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Processions (Bangalore city) Order, 2008, to several citizen groups to hold protest rallies against CAA by arbitrary exercise of power by the city Police Commissioner in imposing prohibitory order between December 19 and 21. The petitioners also contended that the prohibitory order was imposed to prevent protests against CAA.
The Bench, while noticing that the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Processions (Bangalore city) Order, 2008, has a procedure to cancel the permission granted for holding rallies and procession, said that it will examine the legal question whether permission granted under the 2008 order could be revoked by imposing Section 144 without giving an opportunity of hearing to persons or groups in whose favour the permissions were granted.
Making it clear that the court is not concerned with the subject of protest rallies but is concerned with the process adopted by the police in invoking Section 144, which curtails fundamental rights, as formation of opinion is not recited in the prohibitory order issued on December 18 by the Police Commissioner.
Earlier, during hearing, the court asked the Advocate-General what would have happened if some authors and others were allowed to hold demonstrations.
A-G Prabhuling K. Navadgi, while stating that the State is duty bound to protect citizens fundamental right to protest, pointed out that imposition of prohibitory order was not linked to those groups or persons in whose favour the permissions were granted to hold protest rallies against CAA on December 19.
The Police Commissioner, the A-G said, had been receiving various communications, including intelligence reports, for the past 10 days indicating possible threat of protests likely to turn out into a law and order problem with infiltration of antisocial elements in protest rallies, and hence prohibitory order was imposed as a preventive measure. He also clarified to the court that permission for a rally in favour of CAA was also cancelled.
Pointing out that violence occurred in Mangaluru city despite imposition of the prohibitory order, Mr. Navadgi said that a large number of people from Kerala had infiltrated Mangaluru.
The A-G also said that there were audio input that indicated that certain persons were planning to move to Vidhana Soudha after the protest rallies in Bengaluru city, while informing the Bench that the State was prepared to place entire original records leading to imposition of prohibitory orders in the city.
While asking the government to file its responses to the petitions in writing by January 6, 2020, the Bench adjourned further hearing till January 7.
