Thirty-Day Ban, One Silent Vigil
A district magistrate issues an order under the executive magistrate's prohibitory-order power (Section 144 CrPC, now mirrored in Section 163 BNSS), prohibiting the assembly of more than four persons within a two-kilometre radius of the state secretariat for 30 days. The order follows a protest in which two buses were damaged and 11 persons were injured. A law student, Meera, informs the police that she and 30 classmates will hold a silent candlelight vigil for three hours to demand a pedestrian crossing. The police cite the order and refuse permission. The state defends the ban, citing intelligence inputs that a rival political group may disrupt any gathering. Meera challenges the order as a violation of Article 19(1)(b). The state argues that the restriction is reasonable under Article 19(3).
1. Does the magistrate's order restrict a fundamental right, and which clause governs it? Distinguish a regulatory condition from a prohibitory ban.
Read the worked answer
Right and clause. Meera's silent vigil is an assembly under Article 19(1)(b). The governing restriction clause is Article 19(3), not Article 19(2); the state may impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order. A regulatory condition-time, route, number, police protection-is different from a prohibitory ban. A 30-day ban on more than four persons within 2 km is prohibitory in effect, so the state must justify it strictly.
2. Apply a proportionality analysis: are the 30-day, 2-km and four-person limits necessary and least restrictive? What facts matter?
Read the worked answer
Proportionality. The court asks whether the aim is legitimate, whether the measure is rationally connected, whether a less restrictive alternative exists, and whether the burden is excessive. Public order is a legitimate aim, and past violence is relevant. But the state must show a real nexus between Meera's vigil and the feared disruption. A rival group's threatened disruption cannot by itself justify banning the peaceful group; the state has a duty to protect peaceful assemblers. The 2-km radius and 30-day duration are broad. Less restrictive measures include a shorter order, a specific route, a cap on numbers, prior notice, and police deployment.
3. What should the court do-uphold, strike down, or read down-and what safeguards can it impose?
Read the worked answer
Likely order. The court should not uphold a blanket ban merely because intelligence inputs exist. It may read down the order to permit the vigil with conditions, or quash it as disproportionate if no specific threat to the vigil is shown. Safeguards: advance notice, a fixed time and place away from the secretariat gates, a smaller delegation, police protection, and a review after a shorter period. If violence is genuinely imminent, the state must show specific material, not a general apprehension.