What is Section 144?

Authorities imposed Section 144 in many parts of India in the wake of anti-citizenship law protests, yet many civilians, young and old, hit the streets to protest against the Act.

Here's what you need to know about Section 144:

1. What is Section 144

   ?Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 authorises the executive magistrate of any state or territory to issue an order to prohibit the assembly of four or more people in an area. Once imposed, every member assembling can be booked for engaging in rioting and an assembly that have lawfully assembled (say, with prior permission) would be termed as an “unlawful assembly”.
2. Can internet be shut down under Section 144?Yes. Section 144 also has provisions for internet shutdown.
3. What Supreme Court said on Section 144? A case of note is Madhu Limaye vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the Supreme Court ruled on in 1970. In its judgment, the court said: “The gist of action under s. 144 is the urgency of the situation and its efficacy in the likelihood of being able to prevent some harmful consequences. It is not an ordinary power flowing from administration but a power used in a judicial manner and which can stand further judicial scrutiny.” It added “when it is not possible to distinguish between those whose conduct must be controlled and those whose conduct is clear”, a general order may be issued. “But if the action is too general, the order may be questioned by appropriate remedies for which there is ample provision in law,” the court said. In the 2012 case of Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary of Union of India, Supreme Court said: “the perception of threat to public peace and tranquility should be real and not quandary, imaginary or a mere likely possibility.” Note: This case pertains to the anti-corruption protests during the UPA government and the assembly in the Maidan by Baba Ramdev and his followers. Then there is the opposing principles of Section 144 and Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution that guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to every citizen of the country. On this the Supreme Court said in 1989 (S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram here): “Our commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is endangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched.” The most elucidate take on this was perhaps put forward by Justice DY Chandrachud as Supreme Court ordered the release of five activists arrested in the Elgar Parishad case. “Dissent is the safety valve of democracy. If dissent is not allowed, then the pressure cooker may burst,” he said.

Stay updated with the latest news on Times of India. Don't miss daily games like Crossword, Sudoku, and Mini Crossword.