Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
RUPINDER SINGH SODHI AND ANOTHER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/11/1982
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
BENCH:
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ)
SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J)
CITATION:
1983 AIR 65 1983 SCR (1) 841
1983 SCC (1) 140 1982 SCALE (2)1073
ACT:
Freedom of movement on Highways-Reasonable restraints
during mass agitations-Extent of.
HEADNOTE:
In the wake of a threatened Morcha by Akalis which was
to coincide with the inauguration of the Asian Games at
Delhi, some States apprehended that the Morcha might
interfere with the holding of the games and took measures to
intercept The- movement of Akalis to Delhi. On the question
raised by the petitioners that placing of obstructions on
highways so as to impede free flow of traffic was per se
unlawful,
^
HELD: No one is entitled to barricade a highway so as
to prevent members of the public from using it while they
are OD their lawful business in the pursuit of normal
avocations of life. But the police, whose duty it is to
enforce law and order in the wake of threatened mass
agitations which are reasonably likely to lead to breach of
public peace, are entitled in the discharge of that duty to
impose reasonable restraints on the physical movement of
members of the public to protect public property and to
avoid needless inconvenience to other citizens in their
lawful pursuits. But all such restraints on personal
liberty, if at all, have to be commensurate with the object
which furnishes their justification. They must be minimal
and cannot exceed constraints of the particular situation,
either in nature or in duration. above all, they cannot he
used as engines of oppression, persecution, harassment or
the like. The sanctity of person and of privacy has to be
maintained at all costs and that cannot ever be violated
under the guise of maintenance of law and 1 order. The rule
of law requires that no person shall be subjected to harsh,
uncivilized or discriminatory treatment even when the
objective is the securing of the paramount exigencies of law
and order. [842-F-H; 843-A-G]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 8816 and 8817
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
of 1982. G
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Hardev Singh and Bishambhar Lal Khanna for the
Petitioner.
K.G. Bhagat Addl. Sol-Gen., R.N. Poddar and Mrs. S.
Dikshit for Respondents 3 and 4.
842
The order of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRACHUD, C.J. BY these writ petitions, the
petitioners, some of whom are practising lawyers and some
Members of the Parliament, ask for an appropriate writ
directing the State of Haryana and the State of Uttar
Pradesh to remove all obstructions on the highways and to
allow unhindered and unintercepted the use of highways
railways and airways without making any discrimination
against the Akali Sikhs on the ground of religion. Stated
briefly, the case of the petitioners is that in the recent
past, a movement was set afoot in the State of Punjab
consequent upon certain demands made by the members of the
Akali Party and as a result of that movement, large scale
arrests of Sikhs were effected, bordering on harassment and
persecution. It would appear that a declaration was made by
certain Akali leaders that a Morcha would be taken to Delhi
on November 19, 1982 which coincides with the inauguration
of the Asiad games. Apprehending that the Morcha will
interfere with the holding of the games, the border States,
particularly Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, appear to have taken
certain measures to intercept the movement of Akalis across
the border on to Delhi with a view to ensuring that the
proposed Morcha is not staged in the manner feared and the
Asiad not disrupted.
Mr. Hardev Singh who appears on behalf of the
petitioners argues that highways are dedicated to the public
and are meant for their use for passing and repassing.
Therefore, he argues, no obstruction can be placed thereon
which will impede the free flow of traffic, any such
obstruction being per se unlawful. Having given our anxious
consideration to the submissions made by Mr. Hardev . Singh,
we agree that no one is entitled to barricade a highway so
as to prevent members of the public from using it while they
are on their lawful business in the pursuit of normal
avocations of life. But the police, whose duty it is to
enforce law and order in the wake of threatened mass
agitations which are reasonably likely to lead to breach of
public peace, are entitled in the discharge of that duty to
impose reasonable restraints on the physical movement of
members of the public in order to the protection of public
property and the avoidance of needless inconvenience to
other citizens in their lawful pursuits. But all such
restraints on personal liberty, if at all, have to be
commensurate with the object which furnishes their
justification. They must be minimal and cannot exceed the
Constraints of the particular situation, either in nature or
in duration. Above all they cannot be used as engines of
oppression,
843
persecution, harassment or the like. The sanctity of person
and of privacy has to be maintained at all costs and that
cannot ever be violated under the guise of maintenance of
law and order.
We feel uneasy and concerned to hear that policemen of
certain States have violated the norms of decency in their
dealing with the situation arising out of the Akali-Asiad
tangle. We assume for lack of better evidence that the
grievance made by the petitioners before us is more the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
offspring of a natural feeling of resentment at being
stopped and searched than of any substantial invasion of
their personal freedom. If and when there is proof of
latter, Courts may have to step in and stop the excesses.
But the rule of law a requires that no person shall be
subjected to harsh, uncivilised or discriminatory treatment
even when the objective is the securing of the paramount
exigencies of law and order. Therefore, no Sikh can be
allowed to be so treated if our Constitution has to have any
meaning and effect.
We believe it not to be true that any Chief Minister
has made a public declaration that police officers who will
treat the Akali Sikhs harshly will be dealt with lightly. It
is incredible that any highly placed person in his senses
can possibly make such a Statement, with the kind of
pressure of public opinion and the press which, fortunately,
we have in our country to-day. E
There does not appear to be any executive order in
existence, in writing at any rate, authorising the police to
barricade any highway or to subject every Sikh in motion to
physical restraint. But in an appropriate case, a
presumption may well be drawn as to the existence of such an
order if it is found that the police are generally p acting
systematically according to a set and uniform pattern or are
otherwise engaged in a large scale operation of any similar
or mister kind. For want of acceptable evidence, we hesitate
to draw that presumption in this case and will leave the
matter where it lies for the time being. Redress may, if so
advised, be sought in individual cases by those aggrieved by
the alleged acts Of excesses.
This order will dispose of these writ petitions.
H.L.C.
844