Asks administration of all States to give priority to interest of residents affected by demonstrations
Political rallies, agitations and blockades outside a Government building cannot deprive citizens of their right to live a peaceful life, held the Supreme Court in a recent judgement.
The court directed police and administration of all States and UTs to ensure that residents staying in buildings situated close to State Assembly or such prominent institutions in each State/UTs are not inconvenienced due to police barricading, indiscriminate use of loudspeakers, and damage caused by agitators to private property.
The decision came on the plea by one Balwan Singh, a former Director General of Police in Rajasthan who happened to reside close to the Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha. Political and non-political rallies, agitations and dharnas and blaring of loudspeakers disturbed the peace of his life. Agitators camped outside his gate littering the place and urinating on the compound wall of the house.
Singh, who retired from the State police in 1995 and shifted to Jyoti Nagar in Jaipur, complained to the Commissioner of Police that even policemen too used his walls to urinate.
But after his own department let him down, Singh took his complaint to National Human Rights Commission. His complaint came to Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission, which ordered Additional Home Secretary on September 24, 2012 not to block road or barricade outside Singh’s residence. It even restrained policemen from urinating on the residence walls in the area.
This provoked angry reaction from affected people and some miscreants attacked his house. It was then that he approached the Rajasthan High Court and then the Supreme Court to preserve his right to live in peace and dignity as enshrined under Article 21.
Speaking in his favour, the apex bench of Justices FM Ibrahim Kalifulla and Abhay Manohar Sapre said, “Disturbance created by the police, State officials, people at large in the appellant’s peaceful living in his house, in our considered view, do result in adversely affecting the appellant’s rights guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution.”
Even the HC had directed the State agencies and police to follow the orders issued to them by the Rajasthan Human Rights Commission. The apex court was of the firm opinion that incidents of agitation, demonstration and rallies involving use of loudspeakers caused noise pollution against which strict curbs were ordered by SC in 2005.
While enforcing this order, the bench reminded the State authorities to give priority to the interest of citizens adversely getting affected due to such nuisance.