Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani, JJ., granted bail to Asif Iqbal, who was booked under provisions of the UAPA Act for his role in the Delhi Riots during the anti-CAA protest last year.

Asif Iqbal | Mastermind behind Delhi Riots?

Asif Iqbal Tanha, a 25-year old student filed the instant appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 seeking bail as he was in judicial custody since 19-05-2020 under provisions of Penal Code, 1860, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Appellant was alleged to be one of the main conspirators as well as instigators behind the riots that occurred in North-East Delhi and played an active role in the conspiracy.

Section 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

The said section defines ‘terrorist act’ and Section 18 provides for ‘punishment for conspiracy for committing a terrorist act, including an attempt to commit or advocating, abetting, advising or inciting the commission of a terrorist act, as also of any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act’, the word ‘terrorism’ or ‘terror’ has nowhere been defined in the UAPA.

Right to Protest | Part of Fundamental Rights under Constitution of India

48. …Undoubtedly, holding peaceful demonstrations by the citizenry in order to air its grievances and to ensure that these grievances are heard in the relevant quarters, is its fundamental right.”

“…Question is not as to whether the issue raised by the protestors is right or wrong or it is justified or unjustified. The fundamental aspect is the right which is conferred upon the affected people in a democracy to voice their grievances. Dissenters may be in minority. They have a right to express their views.”

“31. The right of citizens to take out processions or to hold public meetings flows from the right in Article 19(1)(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms and the right to move anywhere in the territory of India.”

  • Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re [(2012) 5 SCC 1], the Court observed that the right to assembly and peaceful agitations were basic features of a democratic system and the Government should encourage exercise of these rights

Bench noted that in the present matter, there was nothing to show that Government prohibited the protest.

‘Terrorist Act’ under Section 15 UAPA

The said phrase must partake of the essential character of terrorism and the phrase ‘terrorist act’ cannot be permitted to be casually applied to criminal acts or omission that fall squarely within the definition of conventional offences.

Where the court finds that an act or omission is adequately addressed and dealt with by the ordinary penal law of the land, the court must not countenance a State agency ‘crying wolf’.

State’s attempt to show accusation against appellant prima facie true: Fail. How?

  • No allegation leading to appellant being the leader of all the co-conspirators.
  • Appellant was stated to be a member of SIO and JCC, both are not banned organisation or terrorist organisations listed in First Schedule of UAPA.
  • The anti-CAA protest did not extend to the whole of NCT of Delhi, therefore it would be a stretch to say that the protest affected the community at large for it to qualify as an act of terror.
  • No arms, ammunition and other articles used as weapons were recovered from or at the instance of the appellant.
  • Foundations of nation stand on surer footing that to be likely to be shaken by a protest, however vicious, organised by a tribe of college students or other persons, operating as a coordination committee from the confines of a University situate in the heart of Delhi.
  • State’s submission based upon inferences drawn by the prosecuting agency and not upon factual allegations.
  • Protest in which the appellant participated was neither banned nor outlawed and the same was monitored by law enforcement agencies.

High Court found absolutely nothing in the subject charge-sheet, by way of any specific or particularised allegation that would show the possible commission of a ‘terrorist act’ within the meaning of Section 15 UAPA; or an act of ‘raising funds’ to commit a terrorist act under Section 17; or an act of ‘conspiracy’ to commit or an ‘act preparatory’ to commit, a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 18 UAPA.

Bench opined that no offence under Sections 15, 17 or 18 UAPA was made-out against the appellant on a prima facie appreciation of the subject charge-sheet and the material collected and cited by the prosecution, the additional limitations and restrictions for grant of bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA do not apply.

With regard to outlining the consideration for bail, Court referred to the following significant decisions of the Supreme Court in:

Therefore, applying the well-worn principles of bail, Court held that it is not prima facie convinced of the veracity of the allegations so made and hence granted regular bail subject to conditions.[Asif Iqbal Tanha v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3253, decided on 15-06-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the Appellant: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocate with Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr. Siddharth Satija, Mr. Abhinav Sekhri & Ms. Nitika Khaitan, Advocates

For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Lekhi, ASG alongwith Mr. Amit Mahajan, Mr. Rajat Nair and Mr. Amit Prasad, SPPs with Mr. Ujjwal Sinha, Mr. Aniket Seth, Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Ms. Riya Krishnamurthy and Mr. Dhruv Pande, Advocates.

Sh. P. S. Kushwaha, DCP with Sh. Alok Kumar, Addl. DCP, Special Cell, Insp. Lokesh Kumar Sharma and Insp. Anil Kumar.

Hot Off The PressNews

Here’s the press statement released by the Ministry of External Affairs with regard to the comments by some foreign individuals and entities on the farmers’ protests:

“The Parliament of India, after a full debate and discussion, passed reformist legislation relating to the agricultural sector. These reforms give expanded market access and provided greater flexibility to farmers. They also pave the way for economically and ecologically sustainable farming.

A very small section of farmers in parts of India have some reservations about these reforms. Respecting the sentiments of the protestors, the Government of India has initiated a series of talks with their representatives. Union Ministers have been part of the negotiations, and eleven rounds of talks have already been held. The Government has even offered to keep the laws on hold, an offer iterated by no less than the Prime Minister of India.

Yet, it is unfortunate to see vested interest groups trying to enforce their agenda on these protests, and derail them. This was egregiously witnessed on January 26, India’s Republic Day. A cherished national commemoration, the anniversary of the inauguration of the Constitution of India, was besmirched, and violence and vandalism took place in the Indian capital.

Some of these vested interest groups have also tried to mobilise international support against India. Instigated by such fringe elements, Mahatma Gandhi statues have been desecrated in parts of the world. This is extremely disturbing for India and for civilised society everywhere.

Indian police forces have handled these protests with utmost restraint. It may be noted that hundreds of men and women serving in the police have been physically attacked, and in some cases stabbed and seriously wounded.

We would like to emphasise that these protests must be seen in the context of India’s democratic ethos and polity, and the efforts of the Government and the concerned farmer groups to resolve the impasse.

Before rushing to comment on such matters, we would urge that the facts be ascertained, and a proper understanding of the issues at hand be undertaken. The temptation of sensationalist social media hashtags and comments, especially when resorted to by celebrities and others, is neither accurate nor responsible. ”

#IndiaTogether

#IndiaAgainstPropaganda


Ministry of External Affairs

[Press Statement dt. 03-02-2021]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of SK Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari, JJ has, in the Shaheen Bagh protests matter, held that while there exists the right to peaceful protest against a legislation, public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely.

“Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.”

EVENTS LEADING TO THIS ORDER


  • The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) was passed last year which seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.
  • The passage of CAA led to nationwide protests calling the CAA and the National Register of Citizens discriminatory. A women led protest 24/7 sit-in protest was also initiated in Shaheen Bagh, Delhi.
  • The Shaheen Bagh protest resulted in the closure of the Kalindi Kunj Shaheen Bagh stretch, including the Okhla underpass from 15.12.2019. It was submitted that the public roads could not be permitted to be encroached upon in this manner and, thus, a direction be issued to clear the same.
  • When the law enforcement authorities were control the protests and traffic, the Supreme Court opted for an ‘out of box’ solution and appointed Senior Advocate Sanjay R. Hegde and mediator trainer Sadhana Ramachandran as interlocutors.
  • The interlocutors made appreciable effort and submitted a report on 24.02.2020 which highlighted that the nature of demands was very wide and that it did look difficult to find a middle path towards at least facilitating the opening of the blocked public way. The interlocutors did their best, but their efforts could not fructify into success, although the number of people at protest site had eventually diminished.
  • The second report suggested that
    • The views reflected in private conversations with the protestors were somewhat different from the public statements made to the media and to the protesting crowd in attendance.
    • While the women protestors had sat in protest inside the tent, there was a huge periphery comprising mainly of male protestors, volunteers and bystanders who all seemed to have a stake in the continuance of the blockade of the road.
    • It appeared that an absence of leadership guiding the protest and the presence of various groups of protesters had resulted in many influencers who were acting possibly at cross-purposes with each other.
    • Thus, the Shaheen Bagh protest perhaps no longer remained the sole and empowering voice of women, who also appeared to no longer have the ability to call off the protest themselves. There was also the possibility of the protestors not fully realising the ramifications of the pandemic, coupled with a general unwillingness to relocate to another site.
  • With the advent of COVID-19 Pandemic, greater wisdom prevailed over the protestors at the Shaheen Bagh site and the site was cleared. On this, the Court noticed

“Thus, really speaking, the reliefs in the present proceedings have worked themselves out.”

WHAT THE COURT SAID ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PROTESTERS


“India, as we know it today, traces its foundation back to when the seeds of protest during our freedom struggle were sown deep, to eventually flower into a democracy. What must be kept in mind, however, is that the erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy.”

The Court noticed that the Constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties. Article 19, one of the cornerstones of the Constitution of India, confers upon its citizens two treasured rights, i.e.,

  1. the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)
  2. the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b).

These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State. The same must be respected and encouraged by the State, for the strength of a democracy such as ours lies in the same. These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, which, inter alia, pertain to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order, and to the regulation by the concerned police authorities in this regard.

“Each fundamental right, be it of an individual or of a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right. It was in this respect, that in this case, an attempt was made by us to reach a solution where the rights of protestors were to be balanced with that of commuters.”

Noticing that in this age of technology and the internet, social movements around the world have swiftly integrated digital connectivity into their toolkit; be it for organising, publicity or effective communication, the Court said that technology, however, in a near paradoxical manner, works to both empower digitally fuelled movements and at the same time, contributes to their apparent weaknesses.

“The ability to scale up quickly, for example, using digital infrastructure has empowered movements to embrace their often-leaderless aspirations and evade usual restrictions of censorship; however, the flip side to this is that social media channels are often fraught with danger and can lead to the creation of highly polarised environments, which often see parallel conversations running with no constructive outcome evident.”

The Court said that both these scenarios were witnessed in Shaheen Bagh, which started out as a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, gained momentum across cities to become a movement of solidarity for the women and their cause, but came with its fair share of chinks – as has been opined by the interlocutors and caused inconvenience of commuters.

WHAT THE COURT SAID ON THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES


“The courts adjudicate the legality of the actions and are not meant to give shoulder to the administration to fire their guns from.”

In what manner the administration should act is their responsibility and they should not hide behind the court orders or seek support therefrom for carrying out their administrative functions.

The Court noticed that in the present case, unfortunately, despite a lapse of a considerable period of time, there was neither any negotiations nor any action by the administration, thus warranting our intervention.  It concluded with the following words:

“We only hope that such a situation does not arise in the future and protests are subject to the legal position as enunciated above, with some sympathy and dialogue, but are not permitted to get out of hand.”

[Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 808, decided on 07.10.2020]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: A bench of SK Kaul and KM Joseph has adjourned March 23 hearing on pleas seeking removal of the crowd protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Shaheen Bagh area in the national capital. The bench said that it had to look into the road closure issue.

“We are informed that there are certain unfortunate issues that happened,”

The Court also refused to interfere with the application, filed by Chandrashekhar Azad and social activist Bahadur Abbas Naqvi, seeking courtmonitored SIT probe into the alleged Delhi riots observing that the Delhi High Court is looking into the matter. Justice Kurian Joseph, however, expressed his displeasure over the way the police have acted. He said.

“you (police) have to act immediately to handle the situation.”

On Monday, the two Amicus Curiae, senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Sadhana Ramachandran, had submitted their report in a sealed cover to the Court after engaging with the anti-CAA protestors last week for shifting the venue from Shaheen Bagh. The Court had last week appointed senior advocates — Sanjay Hedge, Sadhana Ramachandran and former bureaucrat Wajahat Habibullah — as interlocutors to talk to the protestors here and urge them to clear the road and protest at an alternate site.

Earlier, the Court had observed that the protesters can continue their protests but in an area designated for protests.

The PIL, filed by Dr Nand Kishore Garg and Amit Sahni through their lawyer Shashank Deo Sudhi earlier this week, also sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others for removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj. Sudhi had, on Monday, mentioned the matter before a three-judge Bench headed by CJI SA Bobde, who asked him to approach the registry for urgent listing of the matter.

The petition seeks appropriate direction to the respondents, including the Union of India (UOI) for laying down detailed, comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines relating to outright restrictions for holding protest/agitation leading to obstruction of the public place. It said that people in Shaheen Bagh are illegally protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, by blocking the common and public road connecting Delhi to Noida.

The Shaheen Bagh protest is an ongoing 24/7 sit-in protest, led by women, that began with the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) which seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.

Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA. Earlier, on December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ  had refused to stay the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.


**READ THE ACT HERE: Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: A bench of SK Kaul and KM Joseph, JJ has adjourned the hearing in the matter pertaining to the protests against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) at Shaheen Bagh after the interlocutors submitted their report in a sealed cover. The Court will now take up the matter on February 26 after going through the report.

The two Amicus Curiae, senior advocates Sanjay Hegde and Sadhana Ramachandran, have submitted their report in a sealed cover to the Court after engaging with the anti-CAA protestors last week for shifting the venue from Shaheen Bagh. The Court had last week appointed senior advocates — Sanjay Hedge, Sadhana Ramachandran and former bureaucrat Wajahat Habibullah — as interlocutors to talk to the protestors here and urge them to clear the road and protest at an alternate site.

Earlier, the Court had observed that the protesters can continue their protests but in an area designated for protests.

The PIL, filed by Dr Nand Kishore Garg and Amit Sahni through their lawyer Shashank Deo Sudhi earlier this week, also sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others for removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj. Sudhi had, on Monday, mentioned the matter before a three-judge Bench headed by CJI SA Bobde, who asked him to approach the registry for urgent listing of the matter.

The petition seeks appropriate direction to the respondents, including the Union of India (UOI) for laying down detailed, comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines relating to outright restrictions for holding protest/agitation leading to obstruction of the public place. It said that people in Shaheen Bagh are illegally protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, by blocking the common and public road connecting Delhi to Noida.

The Shaheen Bagh protest is an ongoing 24/7 sit-in protest, led by women, that began with the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) which seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.

Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA. Earlier, on December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ  had refused to stay the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.


**READ THE ACT HERE: Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A bench headed by CJI SA Bobde has issued a notice to Centre and Delhi government asking it to respond to the death of an infant who was taken to Shaheen Bagh, the venue of protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in the national capital.

The Court took suo moto cognizance on a letter by a National Bravery Award winner Zen Gunratan Sadavarte to stop involvement of children and infants’ in demonstrations and agitations. 12-year-old Zen Sadavarte from Mumbai had written the letter in wake of the death of a four-month infant at Shaheen Bagh. She has approached the CJI saying that the death of the infant Muhammed Jahan occurred due to atrocious suffering while its parents were participating in an agitation at Shaheen Bagh against Citizenship Amendment Act and sought direction for an investigation into the death.

During the hearing, CJI said

“We have the highest respect for motherhood, highest concern for children and they should not be treated badly,”

The CJI went on to ask, “Can a 4-month-old child be taking part in such protests?”

The Court also allowed Zen Sadavarte to assist the Court in the matter after her mother told the Court that she wants to make submissions before the Court.

The Shaheen Bagh protest is an ongoing 24/7 sit-in protest, led by women, that began with the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) which seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.

Four-month-old Muhammad Jahan, who accompanied his mother almost every day to Shaheen Bagh passed away in his sleep  on the night of January 30 after returning from the protests, allegedly after acquiring a severe cold and congestion following exposure to the winter chill at the protest site.

Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA. Earlier, on December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ  had refused to stay the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.

[IN RE TO STOP INVOLVEMENT OF CHILDREN AND INFANTS IN DEMONSTRATIONS AND AGITATIONS IN VIEW OF DEATH OF AN INFANT ON 30.01.2020 AT SHAHEEN BAGH NEW DELHI, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 166, order dated 10.02.2020]

(With inputs from ANI)

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: A bench of SK Kaul and KM Joseph has said that the protesters at Shaheen Bagh cannot block public road and create inconvenience for others. Issuing notice to Delhi Government & Delhi Police, the Court posted the matter on February 17, 2020 and said,

“Protest has been going on for a long time, how can you block a public road.”

The Court observed that the protesters can continue their protests but in an area designated for protests.

The observation of the Court came while hearing the PILs seeking directions to the Central government for laying down guidelines relating to restrictions for holding protests leading to obstruction to public places.

The PIL, filed by Dr Nand Kishore Garg and Amit Sahni through their lawyer Shashank Deo Sudhi earlier this week, also sought appropriate directions to the Centre and others for removal of protesters from Shaheen Bagh near Kalindi Kunj. Sudhi had, on Monday, mentioned the matter before a three-judge Bench headed by CJI SA Bobde, who asked him to approach the registry for urgent listing of the matter.

The petition seeks appropriate direction to the respondents, including the Union of India (UOI) for laying down detailed, comprehensive and exhaustive guidelines relating to outright restrictions for holding protest/agitation leading to obstruction of the public place. It said that people in Shaheen Bagh are illegally protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, by blocking the common and public road connecting Delhi to Noida.

The Shaheen Bagh protest is an ongoing 24/7 sit-in protest, led by women, that began with the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) which seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian, Jain and Parsi communities who came to the country from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014.

Several petitions have been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA. Earlier, on December 18, 2019, the 3-judge bench of SA Bobde, CJ and BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ  had refused to stay the implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.


**READ THE ACT HERE: Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

Hot Off The PressNews

United Nations Human Rights Commissioner in a press briefing has put forward its concern stating that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is fundamentally discriminatory in nature.

Following statement was issued:

The amended legislation seeks to expedite citizenship for religious minorities – naming specifically only Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians – fleeing persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who have been resident before 2014. But it does not extend the same protection to Muslims, including minority sects.

The amended law would appear to undermine the commitment to equality before the law enshrined in India’s constitution and India’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to which Indian is a State party, which prohibit discrimination based on racial, ethnic or religious grounds.  Although India’s broader naturalization laws remain in place, these amendments will have a discriminatory effect on people’s access to nationality.

All migrants, regardless of their migration status, are entitled to respect, protection and fulfillment of their human rights. Just 12 months ago India endorsed the Global Compact for Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration, which commits States to respond to the needs of migrants in situations of vulnerability, avoiding arbitrary detention and collective expulsions and ensuring that all migration governance measures are human rights-based.

While the goal of protecting persecuted groups is welcome, this should be done through a robust national asylum system that is premised on the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and which applies to all people in need of protection from persecution and other human rights violations, with no distinction as to race, religion, national origin or other prohibited grounds.

We understand the new law will be reviewed by the Supreme Court of India and hope it will consider carefully the compatibility of the law with India’s international human rights obligations. 

In the meantime, we are concerned at reports that two people have died and many including police officers have been injured in the Indian states of Assam and Tripura as people protest against the Act. We call on the authorities to respect the right to peaceful assembly and to abide by international norms and standards on the use of force when responding to protests. All sides should refrain from resorting to violence.


United Nations

[Press Briefing dt. 13-12-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of V. Kameswar Rao, J. decided a contempt petition filed by Jawaharlal Nehru University seeking action against the respondent Students Union for disobeying Court’s order dated 9-8-2017 whereby Court directed restriction on any protest within 100 meters of the Administrative building.
According to the facts alleged by the University, the respondents disobeyed the said order of the Court and staged protests against compulsory attendance rule inside the Administrative building. They formed human chains, marched throughout the prohibited area, went all the way to VC’s residence, vandalised the area, held University officials under wrongful confinement, etc. The respondents submitted that the contempt petition was vindictive and vexatious. Further, that they believed in rule of law as a part of the basic structure; that they have a right to peaceful protest; that dissent in dialogue and peaceful demonstration were part of the expression of free speech.

The High Court held that the order mentioned hereinabove stood against the respondents till such time as it was set aside or varied, which wasn’t a case here. The Court observed it as a settled position of law that fundamental right under Article 19(1) does not enable any citizen to exercise the same in a manner which may encroach upon a similar right guaranteed to another citizen. Further, the respondents had a fundamental right of peaceful protest but with certain responsibilities towards fellow students/staff/visitors, etc. The Court observed that the respondents did not express any regret for violating the order. It was not a case of non-compliance by mistake, inadvertence or misunderstanding. In such circumstances, the Court held the respondents guilty of contempt and fined each respondent with Rs 2000. [Jawaharlal Nehru University v. Geeta Kumari,  2018 SCC OnLine Del 9601, decided on 03-07-2018]