Allowed

Manab Sampad Unnayan Sahayak Karmi Union and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC17 Dec 2020WPA/10614/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment permitted a sit-in demonstration for Para Teachers in West Bengal near Dr. B.C. Roy statue. The court imposed restrictions on participant numbers, location distance from government buildings, and mandatory adherence to Covid-19 protocols and noise/pollution norms.

What did the court decide?

Granted immediate permission for sit-in demonstration near Dr. B.C. Roy statue subject to restrictions on participant count (700), location distance, and strict adherence to Covid-19 and pollution con

Manab Sampad Unnayan Sahayak Karmi Union and Ors. Vs… — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2020)

¶1

Daily List 25 Bpg. December 17, 2020

¶2

In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Via Video Conference)

¶3

W.P.A. No.10614 of 2020

¶4

Manab Sampad Unnayan Sahayak Karmi Union and others

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of West Bengal and others

¶7

Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Mr. Samim Ahammed,

¶8

Mr. Arka Maiti,

¶9

Ms. Saloni Bhattacharjee. …for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Amitesh Banerjee. …for the State.

¶11

The petitioners submit that the petitioners wanted to hold a sit-in demonstration in front of Bikash Bhavan or adjacent area, on the ground that none of their long pending demands relating to entitlement of Para Teachers working in the State of West Bengal are being met. The said demands were also specified in the application made for permission by the petitioners on December 5, 2020 before the Commissioner of Police. It was indicated that the demands shall be raised by the petitioners’ organization pending consideration of the same peacefully at the above named venue on and from December 18, 2020 until the demands are met. The

¶12

¶13

petitioners also indicated that all protocols and/or guidelines relating to Covid-19 would be followed during such demonstration. However, such permission was refused by an e-mail dated December 9, 2020 on the ground of the pandemic situation and “day to day increasing trend of Covid-19 in this area”.

¶14

Learned senior counsel arguing for the petitioners submits that to hold a sit-in demonstration in support of the claims of a section of society is a democratic right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Such right, counsel submits, cannot be curtailed by the authorities or for that matter any court of law. Learned senior counsel submits that, since the petitioners already assured the police authorities that they would follow the Covid-19 protocols and guidelines, there could not be any impediment for withholding permission to organize the demonstration.

¶15

However, upon considering the current pandemic situation, a proposal has been handed over to Court which indicates that the petitioners are agreeable to hold the sit-in demonstration from December 18, 2020 near the statue of Dr. B.C. Roy across the Central Park from Bikash Bhavan, primarily for ten days, subject to resolution of the issues raised by the petitioners. The petitioners have also restricted their request to 700 participants on a rotation basis

¶16

¶17

and have asked for further extension of rotation and the peaceful protest depending upon the resolution of the issues involved in the matter.

¶18

Learned senior counsel for the respondentauthorities submits that, due to the pandemic situation and the apprehended law and order situation in case such a demonstration is held with so many people and for an indefinite period, the police authorities were constrained to refuse such permission.

¶19

Moreover, learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that certain restrictions like the deployment of sound limiters with the public address system and other pollution control measures should be in place while the demonstration takes place, if at all.

¶20

Learned senior counsel further submits on the basis of a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. 20419(W) of 2019 (Manab Sampad Unnayan Sahayak Karmi Union and another –Vs- State of West Bengal and others ) dated November 8, 2019 that the restrictions put in by the court in the said judgment ought to be ensured in the present case as well.

¶21

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in fact, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench which decided the appeal against the said order of the co-ordinate Bench and submits that

¶22

¶23

the Division Bench, by its order dated November 10, 2019, considered similar arguments and permitted three hundred persons to take part in the sit-in demonstration outside the Bikash Bhavan at a distance of no less than 100 metres away from the main gate without disturbing the traffic or the access to and from Bikash Bhavan or the nearby Government or other buildings. The Division Bench, further, had stipulated that demonstrators, other than the 300 who conduct sit-in protest outside the Bikash Bhavan building, might gather and carry on peaceful demonstrations at or near the B.C. Roy statue at the three-point crossing at the end of the boulevard that begins at the Eastern Metropolitan Bypass and ends at such three-point crossing. It was kept open to both the police authorities and the demonstrators to record the proceedings on video and directed that adequate police ‘bandobast’ might be made without the police personnel trying to incite the demonstrators or being unduly aggressive towards them, expressing hope that the demonstrators at either place would be peaceful.

¶24

The submissions of both the parties are considered. It requires no citation to observe that it is the fundamental right of the citizens of India to have freedom of speech and expression and to hold demonstrations in a peaceful manner and in

¶25

¶26

consonance with law, in case their perceived legitimate demands are not met by the authorities.

¶27

However, such fundamental right is not unfettered but is qualified by certain legitimate restrictions, as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution itself. If such right is exercised in contravention of any law for the time being in force, the citizens do not have an unfettered right to exercise the same.

¶28

That apart, the Division Bench judgment relied on by the petitioners was rendered on November 10, 2019, that is, before the pandemic situation arose. As such, the peculiar circumstances and precautions necessitated by the pandemic were not before the Division Bench while passing the cited judgment.

¶29

Undoubtedly, a balance has to be struck between the democratic right of citizens and public interest inasmuch as the daily life of commuters/pedestrians and other citizens are not disrupted.

¶30

Keeping in view such factors, it would be appropriate that the petitioners are permitted to carry on their sit-in demonstration subject to certain restrictions, based on the concerns expressed by the respondent authorities as well as agreed proposal of the petitioners.

¶31

¶32

Accordingly, W.P.A. 10614 of 2020 is disposed of by directing the respondent-authorities to grant immediate permission to the petitioners to hold a sit-in demonstration near the statue of Dr. B.C. Roy across the Central Park at Bidhan Nagar (keeping a distance of at least 100 meters during the demonstration from the entrance gate of Bikash Bhavan and other Government and official buildings in the vicinity). The number of participants shall be, as indicated by the petitioners themselves, around 700 on a rotation basis. However, the petitioners shall maintain all Covid-19 protocols throughout the tenure of the demonstration. Even if the demonstration continues for an indefinite period, the petitioners shall ensure that the sit-in demonstration does not create manifest disruption of the traffic or commuters/pedestrians’ movement in the vicinity of the demonstration at all points of time. Moreover, the petitioners shall ensure that sound limiters are used along with the loud speakers used by the petitioners during such demonstration and keep themselves restricted within the norms regarding pollution as fixed by the law and by concerned authorities at all points of time.

¶33

There will be no order as to costs.

¶34

¶35

Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.

¶36

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)

Manab Sampad Unnayan Sahayak Karmi Union and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manab Sampad Unnayan Sahayak Karmi Union and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Ehteshamuddin Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ashes Kumar Roy Vs Coal India Limited and Ors.

Two Way Container Lines Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs National Company Law Tribunal and Ors.

Haydar Ali Khan @ Haider Ali Khan @ Bapanson Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ranaghat Obr Brihattara Graduate Teachers' Association and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Joydip Mitra Vs State of West Bengal& Ors.