Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday observed that while peaceful demonstration is a fundamental right, factors such as a protester's credentials and public inconvenience must be weighed before issuing blanket orders restricting police action.
A bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna directed the Maharashtra government to respond to petitions alleging the illegal detention of individuals by police during recent anti-Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) protests in the city.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Savar Devre alleging police brutality and the detention of people taking part in peaceful demonstrations in solidarity with the protests in Delhi.
The plea sought a direction to police not to detain anyone participating in such peaceful protests.
Advocate Gayatri Singh on Monday submitted an application filed by four people who were detained by police last week after participating in a peaceful march.
The four were detained for a day, then asked to go home and subsequently placed under house arrest, Singh said.
Senior advocate Mihir Desai, appearing for the petitioner, submitted affidavits from two other people whom police had detained from their homes.
The bench noted that while everyone has the right to agitate, the credentials of protesters should also be considered.
"Everyone has the right to agitate. But that should be a peaceful agitation. In Maharashtra, we have seen there is huge restraint from the police," the court stated.
The court added that the credentials of those participating in protests also needed to be examined. "They should not have any criminal antecedents. Under the guise of innocent civilians, criminals should not participate," it said.
Meanwhile, two lawyers representing residents of Shivaji Park in central Mumbai, where protests were held last week, submitted applications claiming that a High Court order prohibits such demonstrations at the venue.
The bench said the petitioners and the state government would also have to respond to these complaints.
The court posted the matter for further hearing on November 19.
