TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Don't Miss
Advertisement

SC junks plea for clarity on Shaheen Bagh verdict

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement
Advertisement

New Delhi, January 24

Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a petition urging it to clarify its Shaheen Bagh verdict, saying no clarification was needed as the judgment spoke for itself.

“The issue is over, why is it listed? What’s the clarification sought I don’t understand…Dismissed,” a Bench led by Justice SK Kaul said rejecting the plea, filed by Syed Bahadur Abbas Naqvi – an intervenor in the case.

Maintaining that “democracy and dissent go hand in hand”, the Supreme Court had on October 20 ruled that roads and public spaces can’t be blocked indefinitely and demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.

Advertisement

Deciding petitions seeking removal of protesters against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) from Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, a three-judge Bench headed by Justice SK Kaul had said, “We have…no hesitation in concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.”

On February 13 last year, the Supreme Court had dismissed a petition seeking review of its Shaheen Bagh verdict.

“The right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public places affecting the rights of others,” it had said.

“We have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements and recorded our opinion that the Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties,” it had said.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement