AGARTALA, Oct 7 (TIWN): Next hearing on Section 144 imposition has been scheduled on November 15 in Tripura High Court. Total two writ petitions were filed against the imposition of Section 144 in Agartala from 21st Sep to 4th Nov. The two petitions were filed by Shyamaprasad Chakraborty and Samarjit Bhattacharjee. The petitioners alleged that by imposing Section 144 Tripura Govt has violated the people’s freedom of speech and fundamental rights on democratic movements. Advocate Purushottom Roy Barman said, “The Advocate General repeatedly tried to convince the Court saying that the petitioners have no right to challenge the Section 144 imposition, but the Court however has denied the claim of the Advocate General and said the case will continue”. The Court has also sought further clarifications on various points.

Purushottom Roy Barman said that the letters exchanged between Govt offices before implementing Section 144  show that the Section 144 was implemented to stop one of the political party leaders’ arrival in the state out of Tripura.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqmdFploIBs Next Hearing on Section 144 imposition on 15th November in Tripura High Court. Advocate Purushottom Roy Barman talked to media. TIWN YouTube Video Oct 7, 2021

What are the Supreme Court’s Guidelines on Section 144 ?

The Supreme Court on January 11, 2020 ruled that Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, imposing restrictions on citizens' fundamental right to assemble peacefully, cannot be invoked as a 'tool' to 'prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights'. The court’s remarks assumed significance in the backdrop of the authorities invoking this provision all too frequently.

Section 144 bars assembly of five or more persons at a place. The provision has been invoked repeatedly to restrict people’s movement in Jammu and Kashmir. Also, it was widely used in Uttar Pradesh and in parts of Karnataka, Delhi and other states during protests over the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. “Our Constitution protects the expression of divergent views, legitimate expressions and disapproval, and this cannot be the basis for invocation of Section 144, CrPC, unless there is sufficient material to show that there is likely to be an incitement to violence or threat to public safety or danger,” a three judge-bench headed by Justice N V Ramana said.

The bench, which included Justices R Subhash Reddy and B R Gavai, said imposing Section 144 had direct consequences upon the fundamental rights of the public. Hence this power “should be used responsibly, only as a measure to preserve law and order”, it said in its ruling on petitions challenging internet shutdown and curbs on people’s movement in J&K. The power under Section 144, being remedial as well as preventive, is exercisable when there is an apprehension of danger, but the danger contemplated should be in the nature of an “emergency” and for the purpose of preventing obstruction and annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, the court said. It is the magistrate’s call to assess the situation and take a call on whether Section 144 should be imposed, it said. While exercising this power, the magistrate is duty bound to balance the rights and restrictions based on the principles of proportionality and thereafter apply the least intrusive measure. Repetitive orders under the provision would be an abuse of power, the bench said.

The state is best placed to make an assessment of threat to public peace and tranquillity or law and order. However, the law requires them to state the material facts for invoking this power. This will enable judicial scrutiny and a verification of whether there are sufficient facts to justify the invocation of this power, it said. In a situation where fundamental rights of the citizens are being curtailed, the same cannot be done through an arbitrary exercise of power; rather it should be based on objective facts, the court said.