CAA Protest case in Uttar Pradesh – State not responsible for acts of violent protesters

Shaunak Choudhury | Student of SVKM’s NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law | 18^th May 2020

Rajat Gangwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2019 SCC OnLine All 5792 (Allahabad High Court)

Facts

Amidst the protests taking place against the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 in the state of Uttar Pradesh, the police had to take certain measures when those protests had turned violent. The Petitioner claimed to be a representative of the residents of U.P including peaceful protesters, persons who have suffered loss of property and life due to violent protests and the injured police personnel of the State of U.P. In order to curb the violence, section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was imposed on certain districts in the state. The Petitioner claimed that the State had failed to fulfil its obligations to maintain the peace and protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. It was also claimed that the State is arresting innocent people and not the actual miscreants. The Petitioner prayed for a Claim Commissioner to be set up, a guideline to be issues by the Respondent about peaceful protest and information regarding the arrested that were made during the protests. The respondent claimed that wherever temporary detention was necessary the police sought to that and immediately released the detainees when the trouble had passed. The government also said that the procedure for assessing the damages caused due to the protests is also being adhered to. 

Issues 

• Whether the State is responsible for the damage caused by the protesters.

Judgement 

The Court firstly pointed out that the person who raises his voice for dissent in a peaceful protest cannot be guilty of doing anything illegal because that is protested by the fundamental right to freedom of speech and assembly. But it then gives the reason as to why it thinks that the State government is not responsible for the damage of property and life that was caused due to the protests. When a protest is blocking a roadway, it infringes upon the rights of other citizens that only wish to use the public ways. A person cannot infringe upon someone else’s rights in order to practice his own. 

When a large number of people are gathered to protest for a common cause, they are doing so peacefully, but it is their responsibility to ensure that no one from among the protesters becomes violent or does anything unlawful. No defense lies for those that are protesting and not sifting out the miscreants from the crowd. It is the responsibility of all those in that assembly to maintain peace and tranquility.

The Court did not find any evidence to suggest that the State acted in any way that would violate any law. It found that the State cannot be responsible in this case and that the State was very transparent regarding its processes.