AGARTALA, Oct 8 (TIWN): Tripura Govt has continued Section 144 imposition without any proper reason behind. However, one of the reasons behind the Section 144 imposition was said that there might be disturbance in the law and order in festival season and thus banned all kinds of political programmes. Up to November 4.However, the Section 144 was challenged in the High Court by two petitioners in two separate cases.

Next hearing on Section 144 imposition has been scheduled on November 15 in Tripura High Court. 

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.

“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.