# IN RE: RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT DT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 4 S.C.R. 971
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-02-23
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/in-re-ramlila-maidan-incident-dt-4-5-06-2011-v-home-secretary-union-of-india-ors-28428
- **Pages:** 182

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.144 rlw s.134 and
the Delhi Police Standing Order 309 - Public agitation -
Police crackdown at midnight on members of sleeping c
congregation - Action against erring police officials -
Compensation to victims - Respondent no. 4-Trust had
obtained permission of the Deputy Commissioner of Police
for holding a yoga training camp between 1st June, 2011 to
20th June, 2011 at Ramlila Maidan, an enclosed public o
ground in Delhi - On 4th June, 2011, Yoga Guru Baba
Ramdev, who had been leading an Anti-corruption campaign,
commenced hunger strike/fast at the said camp to protest
against black money and corruption - Permission granted to
hold the said camp subsequently revoked and on the night
E
of 4th/5th June, 2011 while Baba Ramdev and his followers
were sleeping in the Maidan, they were forcibly woken up in
purported exercise of the police powers conferred uls. 144
CrPC on the strength of a prohibitory order dated 4th June,
2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police -
Police resorted to use of teargas and lathi charge in order to
disperse the assembly as a result of which a number of men
and women were injured, some seriously and also finally
resulted into the death of one Smt. Rajbala - There was also
damage to property - Suo motu proceedings by Supreme
Court - Held: In the facts of the case, the State and the Police
G
could have av_oided this tragic incident by exercising greater
restraint, patience and resilience- The orders were passed by
F
the authorities in undue haste and were executed with force
and overzealousness, as if an emergent situation existed -
971
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A The decision to forcibly evict the innocent public sleeping on
the Ramlila Maidan in the midnight of 4th/5th June, 2011,
whether taken by the police independently or in consultation
with the Ministry of Home Affairs was amiss and suffered from
element of arbitrariness and abuse of power to some extent
8 - The restriction imposed on the right to freedom of speech
and expression was unsupported by cogent reasons and
material facts -
The action demonstrated the might of the
State and was an assault on the very basic democratic values
enshrined in the Indian Constitution - The police failed to
C establish that a situation had arisen where there was imminent
need to intervene - Disciplinary action directed to be taken
against erring police officers/personnel who indulged in brickbatting, resorted to lathi charge and excessive use of tear gas
shells upon the crowd or did not help in transportation of sick
and injured people to the hospitals - Direction for registration
D of criminal cases against police personnel as also members
of the gathering at the Ramli/a Maidan (followers of Baba
Ramdev or otherwise) who indulged in damage to property -
Ad-hoc compensation of Rs.5 lacs to legal heirs of Smt.
Rajbala; Rs.50,0001- each to persons who suffered grievous
E injuries and were admitted to hospital and Rs. 25, 0001- each
to persons who suffered simple injuries and were taken to
hospital but discharged after a short while - However,
consequences of financial liability to pass, though to a limited
extent, upon respondent no.4-Trust as well - Respondent
F no.4 was guilty of contributory negligence - The Trust and its
representatives ought to have discharged their legal and
moral duty and should have fully cooperated in the effective
implementation of the order passed u/s. 144 CrPC - Due to
the stature that Baba Ramdev enjoyed with his followers, it was
G expected of him to request the gathering to disperse
peacefully and leave the Ramlila Maidan - Accordingly, in
cases of death and grievous hurt, 25% of the awarded
compensation to be paid by the Trust - Constitution of India,
1950 - Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(2) and 19(3).
H
IN RE: RAMLILAMAIDAN INCIDENTDT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME 973
SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA
Human Rights - Right to sleep - Public agitation - Police
A
crackdown at midnight on

## Text

_Characters 0–39,772 of 364,305. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39772 for what follows._

[2012] 4 S.C.R. 971
IN RE: RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT DT.4/5.06.2011
A
v.
HOME SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 122 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 23, 2012
B
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s.144 rlw s.134 and
the Delhi Police Standing Order 309 - Public agitation -
Police crackdown at midnight on members of sleeping c
congregation - Action against erring police officials -
Compensation to victims - Respondent no. 4-Trust had
obtained permission of the Deputy Commissioner of Police
for holding a yoga training camp between 1st June, 2011 to
20th June, 2011 at Ramlila Maidan, an enclosed public o
ground in Delhi - On 4th June, 2011, Yoga Guru Baba
Ramdev, who had been leading an Anti-corruption campaign,
commenced hunger strike/fast at the said camp to protest
against black money and corruption - Permission granted to
hold the said camp subsequently revoked and on the night
E
of 4th/5th June, 2011 while Baba Ramdev and his followers
were sleeping in the Maidan, they were forcibly woken up in
purported exercise of the police powers conferred uls. 144
CrPC on the strength of a prohibitory order dated 4th June,
2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police -
Police resorted to use of teargas and lathi charge in order to
disperse the assembly as a result of which a number of men
and women were injured, some seriously and also finally
resulted into the death of one Smt. Rajbala - There was also
damage to property - Suo motu proceedings by Supreme
Court - Held: In the facts of the case, the State and the Police
G
could have av_oided this tragic incident by exercising greater
restraint, patience and resilience- The orders were passed by
F
the authorities in undue haste and were executed with force
and overzealousness, as if an emergent situation existed -
971
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A The decision to forcibly evict the innocent public sleeping on
the Ramlila Maidan in the midnight of 4th/5th June, 2011,
whether taken by the police independently or in consultation
with the Ministry of Home Affairs was amiss and suffered from
element of arbitrariness and abuse of power to some extent
8 - The restriction imposed on the right to freedom of speech
and expression was unsupported by cogent reasons and
material facts -
The action demonstrated the might of the
State and was an assault on the very basic democratic values
enshrined in the Indian Constitution - The police failed to
C establish that a situation had arisen where there was imminent
need to intervene - Disciplinary action directed to be taken
against erring police officers/personnel who indulged in brickbatting, resorted to lathi charge and excessive use of tear gas
shells upon the crowd or did not help in transportation of sick
and injured people to the hospitals - Direction for registration
D of criminal cases against police personnel as also members
of the gathering at the Ramli/a Maidan (followers of Baba
Ramdev or otherwise) who indulged in damage to property -
Ad-hoc compensation of Rs.5 lacs to legal heirs of Smt.
Rajbala; Rs.50,0001- each to persons who suffered grievous
E injuries and were admitted to hospital and Rs. 25, 0001- each
to persons who suffered simple injuries and were taken to
hospital but discharged after a short while - However,
consequences of financial liability to pass, though to a limited
extent, upon respondent no.4-Trust as well - Respondent
F no.4 was guilty of contributory negligence - The Trust and its
representatives ought to have discharged their legal and
moral duty and should have fully cooperated in the effective
implementation of the order passed u/s. 144 CrPC - Due to
the stature that Baba Ramdev enjoyed with his followers, it was
G expected of him to request the gathering to disperse
peacefully and leave the Ramlila Maidan - Accordingly, in
cases of death and grievous hurt, 25% of the awarded
compensation to be paid by the Trust - Constitution of India,
1950 - Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(2) and 19(3).
H
IN RE: RAMLILAMAIDAN INCIDENTDT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME 973
SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA
Human Rights - Right to sleep - Public agitation - Police
A
crackdown at midnight on members of sleeping congregation
- Suo motu proceedings by Supreme Court - Held (per Dr.
B. S. Chauhan, J.): Sleep is a fundamental and basic
requirement without which the existence of life itself would be
in peril -
To disturb sleep would amount to torture which is
B
now accepted as a violation of human right - A sleeping
crowd cannot be included within the bracket of an unlawful
category unless there is sufficient material to brand it as such.
Respondent no.4-Bharat Swabhiman Trust, Delhi
Area had obtained permission of the Deputy C
Commissioner of Police for holding a yoga training camp
between 1st June, 2011 to 20th June, 2011 at Ramlila
Maidan, an enclosed public ground in Delhi. On 4th June,
2011, Yoga Guru Baba Ramdev, who had been leading
an Anti-corruption campaign, commenced hunger strike/
D
fast at the said camp to protest against black money and
corruption. The permission granted to hold the said
camp was subsequently revoked and on the night of 4th/
5th June, 2011 while Baba Ramdev and his followers
were sleeping in the Maidan under tents and canopies,
E
they were forcibly woken up in purported exercise of the
police powers conferred under Section 144 CrPC on the
strength of a prohibitory order dated 4th June, 2011
passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police. The
Police thereafter resorted to use of teargas and lathi
F
charge in order to disperse the assembly which had, by
that time, been declared unlawful. As a result of this
action by the Police, a number of men and women were
injured, some seriously. This also finally resulted into the
death of one Smt. Rajbala. There was also damage to
G
property. The said police action was termed as brutal and
uncalled for by the Press.
Taking suo motu cognizance of the said Ramlila
Maidan incident dated 4th/ 5th June, 2011, the Supreme
Court examined issues pertaining to liberty and freedom,
H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A guaranteed to Indian citizens as fundamental rights
under the Constitution and the possible lawful
restrictions than can be imposed for curtailing such
rights; as also the dimensions of legal provisions in
relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the empowered
B officer in passing an order under Section 144 CrPC.
Disposing of the suo motu writ petition, the Court
HELD:
c Per Swatanter Kumar, J.
1.1. Rights, restrictions and duties co -exist. As, on
the one hand, it is necessary to maintain and preserve
the freedom of speech and expression in a democracy,
0 there, on the other, it is also necessary to place reins on
this freedom for the maintenance of social order. The
term 'social order' has a very wide ambit. It includes 'law
and order', 'public order' as well as 'the security of the
State'. [Para 30) [1014-A, BJ
E
1.2. 'Security of the State' is paramount and the State
can impose restrictions upon the freedom, which may
comparatively· be more stringent than those imposed in
relation to maintenance of 'public order' and 'law and
order'. However stringent may these restrictions be, they
F must stand the test of 'reasonability'. The State would
have to satisfy the Court that the imposition of such
restrictions is not only in the interest of the security of
the State but is also within the framework of Articles 19(2)
and 19(3) of the Constitution. It is keeping this distinction
G in mind, the Legislature, under Section 144 Cr.P.C., has
empowered the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional
Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate, specially
empowered in this behalf, to direct any person to abstain
from doing a certain act or to take action as directed,
H where sufficient ground for proceeding under this
IN RE: RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT DT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME 975
SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA
Section exists and immediate prevention and/or speedy A
remedy is desirable. [Paras 35, 36] [1017-D-G]
Babula/ Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961) 3 SCR
423; State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose AIR 1954
SC 92: 1954 SCR 587;
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SC 597: 1978 (2) SCR
621; Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra
(1978) 3 SCC 544: 1979 (1) SCR 192; S. Rangarajan v.
Jagjivan Ram (1989) 2 SCC 574: 1989 (2) SCR 204; State
B
of Madras v. V.G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196: 1952 SCR 597; C
Chintamanrao & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951
SC 118: 1950 SCR 759; State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti
Kureshi Kassab Jamat and Others (2005) 8 SCC 534:2005
(4) Suppl. SCR 582; Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras
(1950) SCR 594; Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar D
AIR 1966 SC 740: 1966 SCR 709; Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon'b/e
the Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216: 1996 (3) Suppl.
SCR 677; Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and Anr. (2004) 2
SCC 510: 2004 (1) SCR 1038; Madhu Limaye v. Sub
Divisional Magistrate and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 2481: 1971 SCR E
742; Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police,
Ahmedabad & Anr. (1973) 1 SCC 227: 1973 (2) SCR 266;
State of Kamataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004) 4
SCC 684: 2004 (3) SCR 652; S. Pratap Singh v. The State
of Punjab (1964) 4 SCR 733 and Oestruction of Public and F
Private Properties, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
(2009) 5 SCC 212: 2009 (6) SCR 439 - referred to.
Schenck v. United States [63] Led 1173 and Feiner v.
New York (1951) 340 U.S. 315 - referred to.
G
Freedom of Speech: The Supreme Court and Judicial
Review, by Martin Shapiro, 1966; Constitution of India,
(2nd Edn.), Volume 1 by Dr. L.M. Singhvi and
'Constitutional Law of India' by H.M. Seervai (Fourth
Edn.), Vol.1 and Preamble, The Spirit and Backbone of the
H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A
Constitution of India, by Justice R. C. Lahoti; Black's Law
Dictionary - Twentieth Edn.; Concise Oxford English
Dictionary - Eleventh Edn. and Clerk & Lindsel/ on Torts,
Twentieth Edition - referred to.
8
The scope of an order made under Section 144 Cr.P.C ..
its implications and infirmities with reference to the facts
of the case in hand
2.1. An order passed in anticipation by the Magistrate
empowered under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is not an
C encroachment of the freedom granted under Articles
19(1 )(a) and 19(1 )(b) of the Constitution and it is not
regarded as an unreasonable restriction. It is an executive
order, open to judicial review. In exercise of its executive
power the executive authority, by a written order and
D upon giving material facts, may pass an order issuing a
direction requiring a person to abstain from doing certain
acts or take certain actions/orders with respect to certain
properties in his possession, if the officer considers that
such an order is likely to prevent or tends to prevent
E obstruction, annoyance or injury to any other person. On
the bare reading of the language of Section 144 Cr.P.C.,
it is clear that the entire basis of an action under this
Section is the 'urgency of the situation' and the power
therein is intended to be availed for preventing 'disorder,
F
obstruction and annoyance', with a view to secure the
public weal by maintaining public peace and tranquility.
[Para 156) [1088-D-GJ
2.2. In the instant case, the threat of going bn a
hunger strike extended by Baba Ramdev to personify his
G stand on the issues raised, cannot be termed as
unconstitutional or barred under any law. It is a form of
protest which has been accepted, both historically and
legally in our constitutional jurisprudence. The order
passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. does not give any
H material facts or such compelling circumstances that
IN RE: RAMLll.AMAIDAN INCIDENTDT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME
977
SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA
would justify the passing of such an order at 11.30 p.m. A
on 4th June, 2011. There should have existed some
exceptional circumstances which reflected a clear and
prominent threat to public order and public tranquility for
the authorities to pass orders of withdrawal of permission
at 9.30 p.m. on 4th June, 2011. What weighed so heavily B
with the authorities so as to compel them to exercise such
drastic powers in the late hours of the night and disperse
the sleeping persons with the use of force, remains a
matter of guess. The Order under Section 144 Cr.PC does
not contain material facts and it is also evident from the c
bare reading of the Order that it did not direct Baba
Ramdev or respondent No. 4 to take certain actions or not
take certain actions which is not only the purpose but is
also the object of passing an Order under Section 144,
Cr.P.C. [Paras 171, 174] [1097-B-D; 1098-E]
2.3. From the record before this Court, it is not clear
as to why the State did not expect obedience and
cooperation from Baba Ramdev in regard to execution of
D
its lawful orders, particularly when after withdrawal of the
permission for holding dharna at Jantar Mantar, Baba E
Ramdev had accepted the request of the Police not to go
to Jantar Mantar with his followers. The attendant
circumstances appearing on record as on 3rd June, 2011
i.e. the preceding day did not show any intention on their
part to flout the orders of the authorities or to cause any F
social disorder or show threat to public tranquility by their
action. Material facts, imminent threat and requirement for
immediate preventive steps should exist simultaneously
for passing any order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. The mere
change in the purpose or in the number of persons to be G
gathered at the Ramlila Maidan simplicitor could hardly
be the cause of such a grave concern for the authorities
to pass the orders late in the night. In the circumstances
of the case, it appears that it was not necessary for the
executive authorities and the Police to pass orders under H
Section 144 Cr.P.C. and withdraw the permissions. The
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A
matter could be resolved by mutual deliberation and
intervention by the appropriate authorities. [Para 179]
[1100-E-F-H; 1101-A-D]
2.4. The events, right from January 2011, showed that
all the camps and protests organized by the Trust, under
B. the leadership of Baba Ramdev had been completed
peacefully, without any damage to person or property and
without any disturbance to anyone. The action of the
Police in revoking the permissions as well as that of the
executive authorities in passing the order under Section
C 144 Cr.P.C. was a colourable exercise of power and was
not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case.
[Para 182] (1103-A-B]
2.5. It is also not understandable that if the general
'threat perception' and likelihood of communal
D disharmony were the grounds for revoking the
permission and passing the order under Section 144
Cr.P .C., then why the order passed under Section 144
Cr.P.C. permitted all other rallies, processions which had
obtained the Police permission to go on in the area of the
E same Police Division.The decision, therefore, appears to
be contradictory in terms. [Para 183] [1103-C-D]
2.6. Existence of sufficient ground is the sine qua non
for invoking the power vested in the executive under
F Section 144 Cr.P.C. It is a very onerous duty that is cast
upon the empowered officer by the legislature. The
perception of threat should be real and not imaginary or
a mere likely possibility. The test laid down in this Section
is not that of 'merely likelihood or tendency'. The
legislature, in its wisdom, has empowered an officer of
G the executive to discharge this duty with great caution,
as the power extends to placing a restriction and in
certain situations, even a prohibition, on the exercise of
the fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression. Thus, in case of a mere apprehension,
H without any material facts to indicate that the
IN RE: RAMLILAMAIDAN INCIDENTDT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME
979
SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA
apprehension is imminent and genuine, it may not be
A
proper for the authorities to place such a restriction upon
the rights of the citizen. All the grounds stated were
considered at various levels of the Government and the
Police and they had considered it appropriate not to
withdraw the permissions or impose the restriction of B
Section 144 Cr.P.C. even till 3rd June, 2011. Thus, it was
expected of the authorities to show before the Court that
some very material information, fact or event had
occurred between 3rd and 4th June, 2011, which could
be described as the determinative factor for the c
authorities to change their mind and pass these orders.
[Para 184] [1103-E-H; 1104-A-B]
2.7. The administration, upon taking into
consideration the intelligence inputs, threat perception,
likelihood of disturbance to public order and other D
relevant considerations, had not only prepared its
planned course of action but also declared the same. In
furtherance thereto, the Police also issued directions for
compliance to the organizers. The authorities, thus, had
full opportunity to exercise their power to make a choice
E
permitting continuation and/or cancellation of the
programme and thereby prohibit the activity on the
Ramlila Maidan. However, in their wisdom, they opted to
permit the continuation of the agitation and holding of the
yoga shivir, thereby impliedly permitting the same, even
F
in the changed circumstances, as alleged. Quinon
prohibit qua prohibere protest asentire videthir (He who
does not prohibit when he is able to prohibit assents to
it). [Para 185] [1104-D-F]
2.8. The authorities are expected to seriously cogitate
G
over the matter in its entirety keeping the common welfare
in mind. The Police have not placed on record any
document or even affidavits to show such sudden
change of circumstances, compelling the authorities to
take the action that they took. Denial of a right to hold
H
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A such meeting has to be under exceptional circumstances
and strictly with the object of preventing public tranquility
and public order from being disturbed. [Para 186] [1104G-H; 1105-A]
8
Gu/am Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1981 SC
2198: 1982 (1) SCR 1077 - referred to.
Reasonable notice is a requirement of Section 144
Cr.P.C.
c
3.1. The language of Section 144 Cr.P.C. does not
contemplate grant of any time for implementation of the
directions relating to the prevention or prohibition of
certain acts for which the order is passed against the
person(s). It is a settled rule of law that wherever provision
0 of a statute does not provide for a specific time, the same
has to be done within a reasonable time. Again
reasonable time cannot have a fixed connotation. It must
depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given
case. There may also be cases where the order passed
E by an Executive Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
requires to be executed forthwith, as delay in its
execution may frustrate the very purpose of such an
order and may cause disastrous results like rioting,
disturbance of public order and public tranquility, while
there may be other cases where it is possible, on the
F principles of common prudence, that some time could be
granted for enforcement and complete implementation of
the order passed by the Executive Authority under
Section 144 Cr.P.C. [Para 187] [1105-B-E]
G
3.2. In the instant case, all the persons who had
gathered in the tent at the Ramlila Maidan were sleeping
when the Police went there to serve the order passed
under Section 144 Cr.P.C. upon the representatives of the
Trust; the order itself having been passed at 11.30 p.m.
H on 4th June, 2011. Nothing prevented the authorities
IN RE: RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT DT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME
981
SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA
from making proper announcements peacefully requiring
A
the persons gathered at the Ramlila Maidan to leave for
their respective homes early in the morning and before
the yoga camp could resume. Simultaneously, they could
also have prohibited entry into the Ramlila Maidan, as the
same was being controlled by the Police itself. No facts
B
or circumstances have been stated which could explain
as to why it was absolutely necessary for the Police to
wake up the people from their sleep and force their
eviction, in a manner in which it has been done at the late
hours of night. In absence of any explanation and special c
circumstances placed on record, in the facts of the
present case, it was quite possible and even desirable for
the authorities concerned to grant a reasonable time for
eviction from the ground and enforcement of the orders
passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. Except in cases of 0
emergency or the situation unexceptionally demanding
so, reasonable notice/time for execution of the order or
compliance of the directions issued in the order itself or
in furtherance thereto is the pre-requisite. (Para 189]
(1106-C-D, F-H; 1107-A-B]
3.3. Non-grant of reasonable time and undue haste
on the part of the Police authorities to enforce the orders
under Section 144 Cr.P.C. instantaneously had resulted
E
in the unfortunate incident of human irony which could
i1ave been avoided with little more patience and control.
F
It was expected of the Police authorities to bastion the
rights of the citizens of the country. However, undue
haste on the part of the Police created angst and disarray
amongst the gathering at the Ramlila Maidan, which
finally resulted in this sad cataclysm. [Para 190] [1107-CG
DJ
Requirement of Police permission and its effect on the
right conferred in terms of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b)
respectively with reference to the facts of the present
H
~
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A
4.1. Associating Police as a pre-requirement to hold
meetings, dharnas and protests, on large scale, would
not infringe the fundamental rights enshrined under
Articles 19(1 )(a) and 19(1 )(b) of the Constitution as this
would squarely fall within the regulatory mechanism of
s reasonable restrictions, contemplated under Articles
19(2) and 19(3). Furthermore, it would help in ensuring
due social order and would also not impinge upon the
rights of the others, as contemplated under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. That would be the correct
c approach of law. [Para 220] [1120-E-F]
4.2. In the instant case, however, the action of the
Police was arbitrary. The Police action led to a terror in
the minds of members of the assembly and finally the
untoward incident. Here the onus was on the Police
D Authorities to show existence of such circumstances at
the spot when, admittedly, all persons were sleeping
peacefully. The courts have to realize that the rights of
the organizers and other members of the Society had to
be protected if a law and order situation was created as
E a result of a given situation. [Paras 204, 205] [1114-A, D,
E, F]
Babula/ Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961) 3 SCR
423; Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate and Ors.
F AIR 1971 SC 2481: 1971 SCR 742; Amitabh Bachchan
Corpn. Ltd. v. Mahi/a Jagran Manch & Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 91;
R.K. Garg v. Superintendent, District Jail, Saharanpur & Ors.
(1970) 3 SCC 227; State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai
Thogadia (2004) 4 SCC 684: 2004 (3) SCR 652; Himat Lal
K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr.
G (1973) 1 SCC 227: 1973 (2) SCR 266; Destruction of Public
and Private Properties, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 212: 2009 (6) SCR 439 and Union of India
v. Association of Democratic Reforms (2002) 3 SCC 696 -
referred to.
H
IN RE: RAMLILAMAIDAN INCIDENTDT4/5.06.2011 v. HOME
983
SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA
Responsibility of the Trust, Members of the Assembly,
A
their status and duty
5.1. Once an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is
passed by the competent authority and such order
directs certain acts to be done or abstains from doing
8
certain acts and such order is in force, any assembly,
which initially might have been a lawful assembly, would
become an Linlawful assembly and the people so
assembled would be required to disperse in furtherance
to such order. A person can not only be held responsible
C
for his own act, but, in light of Section 149 IPC, if the
offence is committed by any member of the unlawful
assembly in prosecution of a common object of that
assembly, every member of such assembly would
become member of the unlawful assembly. [Para 223)
[1121-C-E]
D
5.2. In the instant case, the Police was concerned
with the problem of law and order while respondent No.
4 and Baba Ramdev certainly should have been
concerned about the welfare of their followers and the
E
large gathering present at the Ramlila Maidan. Thus, to
that extent, the Police and respondent No. 4 ought to
.have acted in tandem and ensured that no damage to the
person or property should take place, which
unfortunately did not happen. Keeping in view the stature
F
and respect that Baba Ramdev enjoyed with his
followers, he ought to have exercised the moral authority
of his office in the welfare of the people present. There
exists a clear constitutional duty, legal liability and moral
responsibility to ensure due implementation of lawful G
orders and to maintain the basic rule of law. It would have
served the greater public purpose and even the purpose
of the protests for which the rally was being held, if Baba
Ramdev had requested his followers to instantaneously
leave Ramlila Maidan peacefully or had assured the
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A Authorities that the morning yoga programme or protest
programme would be cancelled and the people would be
requested to leave for their respective places. Absence
of performance of this duty and the gesture of Baba
Ramdev led to an avoidable lacerating episode. Even if
B there was undue haste, adamancy and negligence on the
part of the Police authorities, then also to this negligence,
there was a contribution by respondent No. 4 as well. The
role of Baba Ramdev at that crucial juncture could have
turned the tide and probably brought a peaceful end
c rather than the heart rending end of injuries and
unfortunate deaths. Even if it is assumed that the action
of the Police was wrong in law, it gave no right to others
to commit any offence /njuria non excusat injuriam. [Para
233] [1126-C-H; 1127 -A]
D
5.3. Every law abiding citizen should respect the law
and must stand in conformity with the rule, be as high an
individual may be. Violation of orders has been made
punitive under the provisions of Section 188 IPC, but still
in other allied proceedings, it would result in fastening
E the liability on all contributory partners, may be
vicariously, but the liability certainly would extend to all
the defaulting parties. In the circumstances of the instant
case, Baba Ramdev and the office bearers of respondent
No.4 contributed to the negligence leading to the
F occurrence in question and are vicariously liable for such
action. [Para 234] [1127-B-C]
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Shri
Laxman Iyer & Anr. AIR 2003 SC 4182: 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR
G 984 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v. Association
of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy and others [C.A. Nos.71147115 of 2003 with C.A. No.7116 of 2003 and C.A. No. 6748
of 2004, pronounced on 13th October, 2011] - referred to.
Nance v. British Columbia Electric Ry. (1951) A.C. 601
H - referred to.
IN RE: RAMU LA MAI DAN INCIDENT DT4/5.06.2011 v. HOME
985
SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA
Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, Twentieth Edition, page 246 A
and Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence, Eleventh Edition,
pages 195, 206 - referred to.
Findings and Directions:
6. (i) In discharge of its judicial functions, the courts
do not strike down the law or quash the State action
with the aim of obstructing democracy in the name
B
of preserving democratic process, but as a
contribution to the governmental system, to make it
fair, judicious and transparent. The courts take care
C
of interests which are not sufficiently defended
elsewhere and/or of the victims of State action, in
exercise of its power of judicial review.
In the facts of the present case, the State and the o
Police could have avoided this tragic incident by
exercising greater restraint, patience and resilience.
The orders were passed by the authorities in undue
haste and were executed with force and
overzealousness, as if an emergent situation existed.
E
The decision to forcibly evict the innocent public
sleeping on the Ramlila grounds in the midnight of
4th/5th June, 2011, whether taken by the police
independently or in consultation with the Ministry of
Home Affairs is amiss and suffers from the element
of arbitrariness and abuse of power to some extent.
The restriction imposed on the right to freedom of
speech and expression was unsupported by cogent
reasons and material facts. It was an invasion of the
liberties and exercise of fundamental freedoms. The
members of the assembly had legal protections G
available to them even under the provisions of the
Cr.P.C. Thus, the restriction was unreasonable and
unwarrantedly executed. The action demonstrated
F
the might of the State and was an assault on the very
basic democratic values enshrined in our H
986
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 4 S.C.R.
Constitution. Except in cases of emergency or the
situation unexceptionably demanding so, reasonable
notice/time for execution of the order or compliance
with the directions issued in the order itself or in
furtherance thereto is the pre-requisite. It was
primarily an error of performance of duty both by the
police and respondent No.4 but the ultimate sufferer
was the public at large.
(ii) It is evident that it was not a case of emergency.
The police have failed to establish that a situation
had arisen where there was imminent need to
intervene, having regard to the sensitivity and
perniciously perilous consequences that could have
resulted, if such harsh measures had not been taken
forthwith.
(iii) The State has a duty to ensure fulfillment of the
freedom enshrined in our Constitution and so it has
a duty to protect itself against certain unlawful
actions. It may, therefore, enact laws which would
ensure such protection. The rights and the liberties
are not absolute in nature and uncontrolled in
operation. While placing the two, the rule of justice
and fair play requires that State action should neither
be unjust nor unfair, lest it attracts the vice of
unreasonableness or arbitrariness, resultantly
vitiating the law, the procedure and the action taken
thereunder.
(iv) It is neither correct nor judicially permissible to
say that taking of police permission for holding of
dharnas, processions and rallies of the present kind
is irrelevant or not required in law. Thus, the
requirement of associating police, which is an
important organ of the State for ensuring
implementation of the rule of law, while holding such
large scale meetings, dharnas and protests, would
IN RE: RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT DT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME 987
SECRETARY, UNION OF !NOIA
not infringe the fundamental rights enshrined under
A
Articles 19(1 )(a) and 19(1 )(b) of the Constitution. This
would squarely fall within the regulatory mechanism
of reasonable restrictions, contemplated under
Articles 19(2) and 19(3). Furthermore, it would help in
ensuring due social order and would also not B
impinge upon the rights of others, as contemplated
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The
police authorities, who are required to maintain the
social order and public tranquility, should have a say
in the organizational matters relating to holding of c
dharnas, processions, agitations and rallies of the
present kind. However, such consent should be
considered in a very objective manner by the police
authorities to ensure the exercise of the right to
freedom of speech and expression as understood in
0
its wider connotation, rather than use the power to
frustrate or throttle the constitutional right. Refusal
and/or withdrawal of permission should be for valid
and exceptional reasons. The executive power, to
cause a restriction on a constitutional right within the
E
scope of Section 144 Cr.P.C., has to be used
sparingly and very cautiously. The authority of the
police to issue such permission has an inbuilt
element of caution and guided exercise of power and
should be in the interest of the public. Such an
exercise of power by the Police should be aimed at
F
attainment of fundamental freedom rather than
improper suppression of the said right.
(v) Respondent no.4 is guilty of contributory
negligence. The Trust and its representatives ought G
to have discharged their legal and moral duty and
should have fully cooperated in the effective
implementation of a lawful order passed by the
competent authority under Section 144 Cr.P.C. Due
to the stature that Baba Ramdev enjoyed with his
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
988
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
followers, it was expected of him to request the
gathering to disperse peacefully and leave the
Ramlila Maidan. He ought not have insisted on
continuing with his activity at the place of
occurrence.
Respondent no.4 and
all
its
representatives were bound by the constitutional and
fundamental duty to safeguard public property and
to abjure violence. Thus, there was legal and moral
duty cast upon the members of the Trust to request
and persuade people to leave the Ramlila Maidan
which
could
have
obviously avoided the
confrontation between the police and the members
of the gathering at the Ramlila Maidan.
(vi) As difficult as it is to anticipate the right to any
freedom or liberty without any reasonable restriction,
equally difficult it is to imagine existence of a right
not coupled with a duty. The duty may be a direct or
an indirect consequence of a fair assertion of the
right. Part Ill of the Constitution, although confers
rights, duties, regulations and restrictions are
inherent thereunder. It can be stated with certainty
that the freedom of speech is the bulwark of
democratic Government. This freedom is essential
for the appropriate functioning of the democratic
process. The freedom of speech and expression is
regarded as the first condition of liberty in the
hierarchy of liberties
granted
under our
constitutional mandate.
(vii) The provisions of Section 144 Cr.P.C. are
attracted in emergent situations. Emergent power
has to be exercised for the purposes of maintaining
public order. The material facts, therefore, should
demonstrate that the action is being taken for
maintenance of public order, public tranquility and
harmony.
IN RE: RAMLILAMAIDAN INCIDENTDT.4/5.06.2011 v. HOME 989
SECRETARY. UNION OF INDIA
(viii) Even if an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had
A
to be given effect to, still Respondent no.4 had a right
to stay at the Ramlila Maidan with permissible
number of people as the land owning authority-MCD
had not revoked its permission and the same was
valid till 20th June, 2011. The chain of events reveals
B
that it was a case of police excesses and, to a limited
extent, even abuse of power.
(ix) From the material placed before the Court, it
cannot be held that the order passed by the C
competent authority and execution thereof are ma/a
fide in law or in fact or is an abdication of power and
functions by the Police. The action, of course,
partially suffers from the vice of arbitrariness but
every arbitrary action necessarily need not be ma/a
fide. Similarly every incorrect decision in law or on
D
facts of a given case may also not be ma/a fide but
every ma/a fide decision would be an incorrect and
impermissible decision and would be vitiated in law.
Upon taking into consideration the cumulative effect
of the affidavits filed on record and other
E
documentary evidence, one is unable to dispel the
argument that the decision of the Ministry of Home
Affairs, Union of India reflected its shadow on the
decision-making process and decision of the police
authorities.
F
(x) Also there would be no illegality if the police
authorities had acted in consultation with the Union
Ministry as it is the collective responsibility of various
departments of the State to ensure maintenance of G
law and order and public safety in the State.
(xi) Every person/body to whom such permission is
granted, shall give an undertaking to the authorities
concerned that he/it will cooperate in carrying out
their duty and any lawful orders passed by any
H
990
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
competent court/authority/forum at any stage of the
commencement of an agitationldharnal procession
and/or period during which the permission granted
is enforced. This, of course, shall be subject to such
orders as may be passed by the court of competent
jurisdiction.
(xii) Even on the touchstone of the principle of 'in
terrorem', the police have not acted with restraint or
adhered to the principle of 'least invasion' with the
constitutional and legal rights available to
respondent no.4 and the members of the gathering
at the Ramlila Maidan.
(xiii) The present case is a glaring example of trust
deficit between the people governing and the people
to be governed. Greater confidence needs to be built
between the authorities in power and the public at
large. Thus, while considering the 'threat perception'
as a ground for revoking such permissions or
passing an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 'care
perception' has to be treated as an integral part
thereof. 'Care perception' is an obligation of the State
while performing its constitutional duty and
maintaining social order.
(xiv) The police authorities should take such actions
properly and strictly in accordance with the
Guidelines, Standing Orders and the Rules
applicable thereto. It is not only desirable but also a
mandatory requirement of the present day that the
State and the police authorities should have a
complete and effective dispersement plan in place,
before evicting the gathering by use of force from a
particular place, in furtherance to an order passed by
an executive authority under Section 144 of the
Cr.P.C.
IN RE: RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT 014/5.06.2011 v. HOME
991
SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA
(xv) This is not a case where the Court can come to
A
the conclusion that the entire police force has acted
in violation to the Rules, Standing orders and have
fallen stray in their uncontrolled zeal of forcibly
evicting innocent public from the Ramlila Maidan.
There has to be a clear distinction between the cases
B
of responsibility of the force collectively and the
responsibility of individual members of the forces. It
is found from the evidence on record that some of
the police officers/personnel were very cooperative
with the members of the assembly and helped them c
to vacate the Ramlila Maidan while others were
violent, inflicted cane injuries, threw bricks and even
used tear-gas shells, causing fire on the stage and
total commotion and confusion amongst the large
gathering at the Ramlila Maidan. Therefore, these two
0
classes of Police Force have to be treated differently.
(xvi) Thus, while directing the State Government and
the Commissioner of Police to register and
investigate cases of criminal acts and offences,
destruction of private and public property against the
E
police officers/personnel along with those members
of the assembly, who threw bricks at the police force
causing injuries to the members of the force as well
as damage to the property, the following directions
are issued: a) Take disciplinary action against all the
F
erring police officers/personnel who have indulged
in brick-batting, have resorted to lathi charge and
excessive use of tear gas shells upon the crowd,
have exceeded their authority or have acted in a
manner not permissible under the prescribed G
procedures, rules or the standing orders and their
actions have an element of criminality.