Summary of arguments

Whether the lockdown regulation by the Government of Shikharabad violates the

constitutional right to protest under Article 19 guaranteed to the citizens of Shikharabad?

This is humbly submitted by the petitioner that, Peaceful protest is a fundamental right and an
essential element of democracy, without which there would be very less accountability left with
the ruling government and every citizen has to wait for the election to vent out their anger
against it.Therefore the Supreme Court should lay down guidelines for protest so that
government of Shikharabad could not curtail our fundamental rights, ‘Right to Protest’.

Advance arguments

Issue 1:Whether the lockdown regulation by the Government of Shikharabad violates the
constitutional right to protest under Article 19 guaranteed to the citizens of
Shikharabad?

(1.1) The fundamental right to freedom of protest can be restricted on the grounds of
reasonable restrictions.

● The Constitution aims at securing to all its citizens liberty of thought, expression,
belief, faith and worship. All its provisions are intended to uphold these fundamental
values and when it secures its citizens justice, social, economic and political, equality of
status and opportunity it promotes among them fraternity assuring the dignity of the
individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.
● Legitimate dissent is a distinguishable feature of any democracy. The question is not as
to whether the issue raised by the protestors is ‘right or wrong’ or “justified or
unjustified’. The fundamental aspect is the right which is conferred upon the affected
people in a democracy to voice their grievances.
● In the Constitution Bench Judgment, Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of
Police, Ahmedabad,The Court held that: This is true but nevertheless the State
cannot by law abridge or take away the right of assembly by prohibiting assembly on
every public street or public place. The State can only make regulations in aid of the
right of assembly of each citizen and can only impose reasonable restrictions in the
interest of public order.”
● Article 19(2) envisages "reasonable restriction". In Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P.38,
Supreme Court, opined as under: The phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the
limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an
excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word
"reasonable" implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course
which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right
cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper
balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (g) and the social control
permitted by clause (6) of Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality.
● The test of reasonableness as laid down by Sastri C.J. in Madras v. V.G. Row, has
generally been accepted as correct. He said: “it is important… to bear in mind that the
test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed should be applied to each individual statute
impugned, and no abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness, can be laid
down as applicable to all cases”. For adjudging reasonableness of a restriction, the
courts consider such factors as: the nature of right alleged to have been infringed, the
underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil
sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing
conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict.
● In this case, to control the widespread covid- 19 infection, the Government of
Shikharabad imposed Lockdown and travel restrictions on the basis of its intensive risk
assessment, however the World Health Organisation(W.H.O) based on various
Scientific reports recommended prohibition on the the travel restrictions due to its
ineffectiveness to deal with the spread of the virus.
● The Government of Shikharabad didn’t present any scientific report or data of risk
assessment in public domain to support its act of implementing lockdown regulation as
a reasonable restriction and in the public interest.
● the Government cannot implicitly suspend the fundamental Right to Protest by
restricting their Right to movement under Article 19(1)(d).
● In the case of Arunachal Nadar v. the State of Madras, it was held that the restriction
imposed on the enjoyment of any fundamental right must have a rational nexus with the
object that the legislature seeks to achieve.
● The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the statute allowing the executive
the discretion to impose restrictions should clearly define the principle on which the
restrictions are to be imposed, the time frame for which they can be imposed, and the
person who is aggrieved by the acts of the executive should have the opportunity to
make a representation before the authority.
● In this case the government of shikharabad has not issued any “ sunset clause” for the
lockdown regulation and has not prescribed any concerned authority to address any
grievances by the general public .
● The Lockdown is unreasonable as the proportionality of restrictive measures principle
is founded on the knowledge that a single uniform formula does not apply to all
situations or all citizens at all times. It is so because natural circumstances in a
community have positioned persons on various rungs of the ladder, with varying
degrees of liberty.Unintelligent limits put all at once on distinctly placed persons Just
because the lockdown regulation is unreasonable, the Government cannot implicitly
suspend the fundamental Right to Protest by restricting their Right to movement under
Article 19(1)(d).