Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has directed authorities to ensure that any orders restricting public gatherings under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or the Gujarat Police Act are adequately publicised and not merely notified in the official gazette. The court noted that the public cannot be expected to access or keep track of such notifications, and therefore, authorities must use modern mass communication tools, including social media, to disseminate such orders.

The direction was passed by Justice M R Mengdey on Thursday while setting aside notifications issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which had been used to register offences against certain individuals who had participated in protests against the Citizenship Act in Ahmedabad in 2019.

Background of the Case

The petitioners challenged the issuance of Section 144 notifications and the consequent cases filed against them, arguing that the notifications were not publicised adequately, leaving them unaware of the prohibitory orders. Section 144 empowers authorities to prohibit the assembly of four or more persons in public places in urgent situations. With the introduction of the BNSS, Section 163 now contains similar provisions for emergency preventive measures.

The petitioners contended that the authorities repeatedly used Section 144 notifications from 2016 to 2019 to curb public gatherings in Ahmedabad, sometimes issuing fresh notifications even when a prior order was still in force, seemingly to circumvent the two-month validity limit of Section 144 orders. They argued that such repeated notifications effectively curtailed their fundamental right to peacefully protest and express their grievances against the government.

High Court Observations

The court emphasised that in the present era, relying solely on the publication of notifications in the official gazette is insufficient. “The public at large has no access to such official gazette,” the court observed. It highlighted that authorities now have access to multiple communication channels, including social media, websites, and other digital platforms, which can ensure wider dissemination of such notifications.

The court directed that before exercising powers to restrict gatherings, authorities must also adhere to procedural safeguards, including issuing notices to the affected individuals where applicable. Justice Mengdey stressed that failure to follow such procedures risks suppressing legitimate expression of opinion and curtailing citizens’ fundamental rights.

The court noted that while Section 144 notifications had been largely discontinued recently, similar orders continued to be issued under Section 37 of the Gujarat Police Act, reinforcing the need for public awareness and transparency.

Implications

This ruling reinforces citizens’ rights to protest and participate in public assemblies while making it clear that administrative authorities cannot rely solely on gazette notifications for restricting such rights. By mandating wide publicity through contemporary communication methods, the court has sought to ensure that citizens are adequately informed of restrictions and can plan their actions accordingly.

The judgment also serves as a reminder to authorities that procedural compliance and transparency are essential when exercising emergency powers that impact fundamental rights, and that citizens must have reasonable access to such information.

Key Takeaways:

• Orders restricting gatherings under BNSS or Gujarat Police Act must be widely publicised.
• Mere notification in the official gazette is inadequate in the digital age.
• Authorities must use social media and other communication channels for dissemination.
• Procedural safeguards, including prior notice to affected individuals, must be observed.
• Repeated or overlapping notifications that limit the right to protest can violate fundamental rights.

The Gujarat High Court’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing state authority with citizens’ fundamental rights, ensuring that restrictions on public gatherings are not exercised arbitrarily or without proper public awareness.