The right to assemble may be regulated by relocating rallies to alternative venues protecting public convenience.

The petitioner applied on 1 September 2026 for permission to hold a political rally on G.T. Road, Hooghly, on 11 September 2026 between 14:00 and 17:00 hours, with approximately 5,000 participants.

The petitioner contended that other political organisations were regularly permitted to hold rallies on G.T. Road and that the proposed programme would keep one flank of the road open for vehicular and pedestrian movement.

After the writ petition was filed on 7 September 2026, the Inspector-in-Charge, Serampore Police Station rejected the application on the same day.

The police cited, inter alia, possible obstruction of access to Walsh Hospital, the location of a Fire Brigade establishment, and the presence of five schools along or near the proposed route.

A local organisation, Rishra Shyamaprasad Seva Samity, opposed the proposed rally on the ground that G.T. Road was narrow and congested, particularly on working days.

During the hearing, the petitioner proposed an alternative meeting at Mahesh Jagannath Dev’s Snanpiri Maidan, while the State suggested that the programme be held on Delhi Road.

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to exercise the right to hold a political gathering under Article 19(1)(b) despite the police authorities’ refusal to permit the proposed rally on G.T. Road on grounds of public safety, traffic management, and access to essential institutions.

Whether the Court could regulate the venue, timing, duration, attendance, and manner of the proposed political programme so as to balance the petitioner’s democratic rights with the interests of local residents and public administration.

Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, but that right may be reasonably regulated in the interests of public order and the rights of others.

Relying on Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr., (1973) 1 SCC 227, particularly paragraph 42, the Court recognised that the right of assembly can be regulated so that all persons are able to enjoy their rights.

The Court applied the principle that regulation should balance the exercise of democratic freedoms with traffic, public safety, access to hospitals and other essential establishments, and the maintenance of law and order.

The Court accepted that the proposed procession on G.T. Road could create practical difficulties because the road was narrow and the route potentially affected access to Walsh Hospital, a Fire Brigade establishment, and five schools.

At the same time, it considered that an outright denial would insufficiently account for the petitioner’s constitutionally protected democratic right to assemble.

Applying the balancing principle in Himat Lal K. Shah, the Court found that shifting the programme from a procession or rally on G.T. Road to a confined meeting at Mahesh Jagannath Dev’s Snanpiri Maidan would substantially address the police authorities’ concerns while preserving the petitioner’s right to hold a political programme.

The Court therefore imposed conditions concerning the venue, time, number of participants, sound limits, non-inflammatory speech, police deployment, prohibition on blocking G.T. Road, volunteer responsibility, immediate vacation of the venue, and removal of the temporary stage and event equipment.

The meeting was subject to conditions including compliance with sound limits, prohibition of inflammatory statements, maintenance of public order, no procession or obstruction on G.T. Road, immediate vacation of the venue, and dismantling of the temporary stage after the meeting.

The Inspector-in-Charge, Serampore Police Station, was directed to provide necessary protection and assistance to enable the meeting and the removal of equipment peacefully.

The advocates were directed to communicate the substance of the order to the Inspector-in-Charge without awaiting the server copy.