Section 144 was first introduced to curb nationalist activities in

1861. Post-independence, it has been mostly used to curb unlawful

assemblies and processions that are anticipated as a danger to
public tranquility. 

 Section 144 of CrPC gives power to a District Magistrate, a

sub- divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate
on behalf of the State Government to issue an order to an
individual or the general public in a particular place or area to
"abstain from a certain act" or "to take certain order with
respect to certain property in his possession or under his
management".
 Rationale for the application of Section 144: Orders under
this section should be applied only when it is likely to prevent
any of the following events from happening:
o Annoyance: Annoyance may be either physical or
mental. This section covers both kinds of
annoyance. Section 144 Criminal Procedure Code, can be
used even against newspapers in proper cases of
incitements to breaches of the peace or to commit
nuisances, dangerous to life or health or to annoy
officers lawfully employed.
o Injury to Human life: A Magistrate has no jurisdiction to
make an order under this section merely for the
protection of property. He has got to be satisfied that
the direction is likely to prevent injury or risk of injury to
human life or safety.
o Disturbance of public tranquillity: The section
prohibits an act if it is likely to disturb public tranquility,
etc. 

Conditions related to the issue of an order under Sec. 144

 The magistrate has to pass a written order which may be

directed against a particular individual, or to persons residing
 in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when
frequenting or visiting a particular place or area. 
 In emergency cases, the magistrate can pass these orders
without prior notice to the individual against whom the order
is directed.
 The order can also be revoked or altered by the magistrate
or the state government on their own (suo moto) or after an
application by an aggrieved person(s). 

Powers of administration under the provision

 The magistrate can direct any person to abstain from a certain

act or to take a certain order with respect to certain property
in his possession or under his management. This usually
includes restrictions on movement, carrying arms and from
assembling unlawfully. 
 It is generally believed that assembly of three or more people
is prohibited under Section 144. However, it can be used to
restrict even a single individual. The restriction could be
imposed in a specific locality or in the entire town or state.
 All civilians are barred from carrying of weapons of any kind
including lathis, sharp-edged metallic objects or firearms in
public places. 
 Violation of Section 144 is liable for punishment up to
three years in jail. However, in most cases involving public
protests, as is the case with protests over the Citizenship
Amendment Bill, the protesters are taken into custody by
police and released after a few hours. 
 Section 144 is a temporary remedy, under which an order
is valid only for a period of two months. This order can
be extended to a further period of six months if the State
Government deems it necessary to prevent a riot, affray, or for
the health and safety of citizens. 
Pros of section 144:

 Handling new age protest:

o Leaderless protests: Protests nowadays sometimes
embrace entire communities and tend more and more to
be ‘leaderless’. This is both a strength and
weakness. Police are outnumbered by mobilised crowds.
o Use of internet: New agitational methodologies are
being employed with the use of the ‘digital wave’.
o The police find themselves severely handicapped in
handling agitations, especially those agitations
sponsored by today’s newest ‘elite’, viz. the middle class.
o With little amendments, promulgation of Section
144, is heplful in containing the new age protests,

 Tackling extremism: For example, in view of the prevailing

security situation in Jammu and Kashmir in recent days, the
government has imposed Section 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) in the state.

 Internal Security - Parliament Building Complex and the

Supreme Court are among such areas where Section 144 is
always in force.
 Tackling climate emergency:  In Bihar, it was this year
invoked to prevent deaths from Heat Waves.

Concerns

 Absolute power: the words of the section are wide enough to

give absolute power to a magistrate that may be exercised
unjustifiably. 
o The immediate remedy against such an order is a
revision application to the magistrate himself. 
 Shortcomings of writ petition: An aggrieved individual can
approach the High Court by filing a writ petition if his
fundamental rights are at stake. At best, the courts can make
 sure that the procedure was correctly followed, but they
cannot substitute their judgment for that of the officer on the
ground.
 Not specifically tailored towards the kinds of dangers:
Section 144(1) confers powers for achieving certain goals, i.e.
preventing any damage to life or property, but frames these
objectives as widely as possible given the logic of
emergencies.
o However, there is nothing in the statute itself that says
that the executive officer can only do A, B, or C to, say,
prevent any “disturbance of public tranquillity”, where
this did not suggest any active threats to life or
property. 
 Imposition of Section 144 to an entire state, as in UP, has
also drawn criticism since the security situation differs from
area to area.
 Violation of fundamental rights:
o It may violate the right to assemble peaceably and
without arms is laid down in Article 19(1)(B) of the
Constitution.
o Internet shutdowns: it may amount to a direct violation
of the fundamental right to freedom of
speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India.
o An infringement of freedom 'to practice any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or
business' as laid down under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution: The heavy losses accrued by e-commerce
business due to untimely shut down of the internet
violates this right. This fundamental right can only be
limited on the grounds as laid under Article 19(6).
CASES
Constitutional Validity of this Section
The provisions laid down in this section are not in excess of the limits as
provided in the Constitution for restricting the freedoms guaranteed under
Article 19(1) (a), (b), (c) and (d). The restrictions are reasonable and there
is an availability of sufficient safeguards to the person affected by an order
under section 144 of CrPC. If properly applied, the section is not
unconstitutional. It was stated in the case of Madhu Limaye v S.D.M.
Monghyr that the fact that it may be subdued is no ground for holding it as
violative of the constitution.

 Puttaswamy case(2017), the SC laid down a four-fold test to

determine proportionality:
o A measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal
(legitimate goal stage).
o It must be a suitable means of furthering this goal
(suitability or rationale connection stage).
o There must not be any less restrictive but equally
effective alternative (necessity stage).
o The measure must not have a disproportionate impact
on the rights holder (balancing stage).
 In Babulal Parate v State of Maharashtra (1961) case, the
SC held that the power can be used even in anticipation of
danger. But it should be based on sufficient materials which
show that immediate prevention of certain acts is necessary to
preserve public safety.

Ramlila Maidan case 2012: the Supreme Court came down heavily
on the government for imposing Section 144 against a sleeping
crowd in Ramlila Maidan. It said that such a provision can be used
only in grave circumstances for the maintenance of public peace. 
As explained in In Re Ramlila Incident Case, the necessary
prerequisites of the order under Section 144 are :

1. Such an order can be passed against an individual or persons

residing in a particular place or area or even against the public
in general. 
2. Such an order can remain in force, not in excess of two
months. 
3. The Government has the power to revoke such an order and
wherever any person moves the Government for revoking
such an order, the State Government is empowered to pass an
appropriate order, after hearing the person in accordance with
Sub-section (3) of Section 144 Cr.P.C. 
4. Out of the aforestated requirements, the requirements of
existence of sufficient ground and need for immediate
prevention or speedy remedy is of prime significance.

Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India and

Anr., where the Supreme Court held that it [the order] was not
unconstitutional but recognised the right to protest and asked the
government and police to frame guidelines.”
s