Every Citizen Has A Right To Peaceful Protest Provided It Doesn’t Encroach Upon Rights Of People At Large: Calcutta HC Allows Doctors To Protest RG Kar Rape Case
The Calcutta High Court has allowed the Joint Platform of Doctors to protest the R.G. Kar Rape Case while observing that every citizen has a right to make a peaceful protest provided a sufficient safeguard is taken in this regard which does not encroach upon the rights of the people at large.
The Court modified an Order of the Single Bench restricting the number of people to 100 instead of 200 to 250 and allowed the Joint Platform of Doctors to conduct a peaceful sit-in demonstration to protest the R.G. Kar Rape Case. The State had challenged the Single Bench’s decision to allow the protest. However, the Division Bench stated that every citizen of the Country had a right to peaceful protest but it should also be balanced with public convenience.
A Division Bench of Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed, “Every citizen of a country has a right to make a peaceful protest provided a sufficient safeguard is taken in this regard which does not encroach upon the rights of the people at large. There has been a nationwide protest in relation to such unprecedented incident and the Doctors forum being a responsible citizen of the country are aware that any protest which would cause inconvenience or encroach upon the rights of the parties are not acceptable. Every citizen of the country has a right to make a peaceful protest and, therefore, while refusing to grant such permission, the authorities must also bear in mind the other past incidents where the permission was granted.”
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya appeared for the Respondents.
The Joint Platform of Doctors sought permission to hold a peaceful sit-in demonstration at Dorina Crossing, protesting an unprecedented and brutal incident at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital on August 9, 2024. The incident shocked the nation and raised concerns about the safety and security of medical professionals.
The police authorities denied permission stating that there could be potential congestion and inconvenience to the public due to the upcoming festive season. The forum filed a Writ Petition seeking permission to hold the demonstration, claiming that their right to protest was being denied unfairly.
The Single Bench permitted the sit-in demonstration, limiting the gathering to 200–250 participants and ensuring safeguards, including guardrails around the protest site, to prevent disruption to traffic and public movement.
The Division Bench of the High Court noted that the State had filed the Appeal flagging the issue that the Court should not usurp the power of the administrative authorities in taking a decision in the administrative fiat.
It explained that “there is no ambiguity in our mind that the Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering with the administrative decisions unless it fails the test of reasonability. It is also not a rule of universal application that the Court cannot pass an interim order of a nature as it would tantamount to granting the final relief if the facts and circumstances is so evident and imminent from the record and the test of balance of convenience and inconvenience and the irreparable loss and injury would cause impairment to the right, the Court may pass an interim order at the interlocutory stage but after providing reasons in support thereof.”
The Court noted that the issue pertained to “an unprecedented, unfortunate and unimaginable incident” that happened in the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital and the investigation was entrusted to the CBI in one of the public interest litigation filed before the Court.
Consequently, the Court held, “We thus do not think that there is any justification in the stand of the police authorities in refusing to grant permission but equally we cannot overlook that the respondents themselves in the writ petition indicated that there will be only a gathering of 100 peoples but in the impugned order, the learned Judge has increased it to 200 to 250 people. The Court cannot substitute its own view and pass an order which is neither pleaded nor prayed for by the parties.”
Cause Title: The State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Joint Platform of Doctors & Anr.
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay; JSC Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay; Advocates Amrita Panja Moulick, Arka Kumar Nag and Rahul Singh
Respondents: Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya; Advocates Samim Ahmmed, Saloni Bhattacharya and Enamul Islam