AMIT SAHNI v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & Ors.

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 the Court to reach a solution where the rights of protestors were to be balanced with that of commuters. However, while appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation, it is made unequivocally clear that 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. The plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest cannot be accepted. 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. The High Court also should have monitored the matter rather than disposing of the Writ Petition and creating a fluid situation.[Paras 16, 17, 19 and 20][158-A-G' 159-E-F]