In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has granted major relief to individuals who protested against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Ahmedabad. The court has struck down multiple prohibitory orders issued by the city's police commissioner under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which had severely restricted the right to assemble.
Court Slams Police Overreach, Upholds Right to Protest
The bench of Justice M R Mengdey, delivering the judgment on Thursday, strongly criticized the police authorities for exercising their powers in "utter disregard of the safeguards" provided by law. The court stated that the actions appeared arbitrary and were violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights. Consequently, the court quashed the notifications, including one specifically dated November 3, 2025.
The legal battle stemmed from police actions in 2019. Following the passage of the CAA, the Ahmedabad police invoked Section 144 of the CrPC alongside Section 37 of the Gujarat Police Act to ban gatherings of more than four people. This move was aimed at preventing planned protests against the controversial legislation.
Petitioners' Challenge and Government's Defense
The restrictions were legally challenged by four protesters, including Navdeep Mathur, a faculty member at the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA). They argued that the continuous imposition of such prohibitory orders was a direct infringement on citizens' constitutional right to peaceful protest. The petitioners had also been booked by the police for organizing demonstrations without prior authorization and for violating the notification.
The state government defended the police's use of these extraordinary powers, citing potential law and order problems. However, the petitioners successfully established before the court that there were no actual incidents at the time that justified the invocation of the stringent Section 144. They further contended that the police had not explored other, less restrictive options to maintain public order and had failed to give the notifications wider publicity, which is a legal mandate.
Implications: Ongoing Prosecutions and Future Safeguards
The high court rejected the government's argument that the notifications had already "lived their life" and were no longer in force. The judges pointed out that many individuals, including the petitioners, are still facing prosecution for allegedly breaching those very orders. The court emphasized that the validity of the notifications needed judicial scrutiny even after their expiry to prevent people from being prosecuted under orders later declared arbitrary.
In its directive, the court ordered the police to ensure that in the future, while exercising similar powers under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or the Gujarat Police Act, they must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards. The court specifically mandated that any such orders must be given wide publicity on social media to ensure the public is adequately informed.
This ruling reinforces judicial oversight over administrative powers that curtail civil liberties and sets a precedent for how authorities must balance law and order concerns with the fundamental right to dissent and protest.
