RAMLILA MAIDAN INCIDENT DT.4/5.06.

2011
v.
HOME SECRETARY, UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2011

The Supreme Court in its judgement has upheld the right to peaceful
protest as a Constitutional right. The Court has rightly observed:
Freedom of speech, right to assemble and demonstrate by holding
dharnas and peaceful agitation are the basic features of a
democratic system. The people of a democratic country like ours
have a right to raise their voice against the decisions and actions of
the Government or even to express their resentment over the
actions of the government on any subject of social or national
importance. The Government has to respect, and in fact, encourage
exercise of such rights. It is the abundant duty of the State to aid
the exercise of right to freedom of speech as understood in its
comprehensive sense and not to throttle or frustrate exercise of
such rights by exercising its executive or legislative powers and
passing orders or taking action in that direction in the name of
reasonable restrictions.

2012

The right to peacefully and lawfully assemble together and to freely

express oneself coupled with the right to know about such
expression is guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of
India. Such a right is inherent and is also coupled with the right to
freedom and liberty which have been conferred under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
No doubt, the law of social control is preserved in the hands of the State, but at the same
time, protection against unwarranted governmental invasion and intrusive action is also
protected under the laws of the country. Liberty is definitely no licence and the right of such
freedom is not absolute but can be regulated by appropriate laws. The freedom from official
interference is, therefore, regulated by law but law cannot be enforced for crippling the
freedom merely under the garb of such regulation. The police or the Administration without
any lawful cause cannot make a calculated interference in the enjoyment of the fundamental
rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country.

Article 355 of the Constitution provides that the Government of every State would act in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The primary task of the State is to provide
security to all citizens without violating human dignity. Powers conferred upon the statutory
authorities have to be, perforce, admitted. Nonetheless, the very essence of constitutionalist
is also that no organ of the State may arrogate to itself powers beyond what is specified in the

Constitution. (Vide: GVK Industries Ltd. &. Anr. v. Income Tax Officer 236 &. Anr., (2011) 4
SCC 36; and Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chhatisgarh, AIR 2011 SC 2839).

In H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR
1971 SC 530, this Court held that even in civil commotion or even in war or peace, the State
cannot act catastrophically outside the ordinary law and there is legal remedy for its wrongful
acts against its own subjects or even a friendly alien within the State.
16. In M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. &. Ors., AIR 1979 SC 621,
this Court held that rule of law means, no one, however, high or low is above the law.
Everyone is subject to the law fully and completely as any other and the Government is no
exception. Therefore, the State authorities are under a legal obligation to act in a manner that
is fair and just. It has to act honestly and in good faith. The purpose of the Government is
always to serve the country and ensure the public good. (See also: D.K. Basu v. State of West
Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610).
Privacy and dignity of human life has always been considered a fundamental human right of
every human being like any other key values such as freedom of association and freedom of
speech. Therefore, every act which 237 offends or impairs human dignity tantamounts to
deprivation pro tanto of his right to live and the State action must be in accordance with
reasonable, fair and just procedure established by law which stands the test of other
fundamental rights. (Vide: Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
&. Ors., AIR 1981 SC 746).

The citizens/persons have a right to leisure; to sleep; not to hear and to remain silent. The
knock at the door, whether by day or by night, as a prelude to a search without authority of
law amounts to be police incursion into privacy and violation of fundamental right of a citizen.
(See: Wolf v. Colorado, (1948) 338 US 25).
Right to privacy has been held to be a fundamental right of the citizen being an integral part of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India by this Court. Illegitimate intrusion into privacy of a
person is not permissible as right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed
under our Constitution. Such a right has been extended even to woman of easy virtues as she
has been held to be entitled to her right of privacy. However, right of privacy may not be
absolute and in exceptional circumstance particularly 239 surveillance in consonance with the
statutory provisions may not violate such a right. (Vide: Malak Singh etc. v. State of Punjab &
Haryana & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 760; State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Madhukar Narayan
Mardikar, AIR 1991 SC 207; R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.,
AIR 1995 SC 264; PUCL v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1997 SC 568; Mr. `X' v. Hospital `Z',
(1998) 8 SCC 296; Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493 ; People's Union for Civil Liberties
(PUCL) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 2003 SC 2363 ; District Registrar and Collector,
Hyderabad & Anr. v. Canara Bank & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 496 ; Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v.
State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 551; and Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka,
AIR 2010 SC 1974).
In Ram Jethmalani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 1, this Court dealt with the
right of privacy elaborately and held as under: "Right to privacy is an integral part of right to
life. This is a cherished constitutional value, and it is important that human beings be allowed
domains of freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless they act in an unlawful manner.......
The solution for the problem of abrogation of one zone of constitutional values cannot be the
creation of another zone of abrogation of constitutional values..... The notion of fundamental
rights, such as a right to privacy as part of right to life, is not merely that the State is enjoined

from derogating from them. It also includes the responsibility of the State to uphold them
against the actions of others in the society, even in the context of exercise of fundamental
rights by those others".
While dealing with the violation of Human Rights by Police Officials, this Court in Prithipal
Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 10, held as under: "The right to life has
rightly been characterized as "supreme" and 'basic'; it includes both so-called negative and
positive obligations for the State". The negative obligation means the overall prohibition on
arbitrary deprivation of life. In this context, positive obligation requires that State has an
overriding obligation to protect the right to life of every person within its territorial jurisdiction."
Thus, it is evident that right of privacy and the right to sleep have always been treated to be a
fundamental right like a right to breathe, to eat, to drink, to blink, etc.(we can edit these
words-anmol )