Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16753 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Dr. Randall Sequeira …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Collector and District Magistrate, Rayagada and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Afraaz Suhail, Adv. Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-24.06.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-18.07.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the exclusion order dated 05.06.2025 issued under Section 163 of the BNSS, which barred him from entering Rayagada district, alleging it violates his constitutional rights under Article 19. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Page 1 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 (i) The petitioner, Dr. Randall Sequeira, is a registered medical practitioner originally from Mangalore, Karnataka, currently residing in Hill Town, Bhawanipatna, Odisha. He has been working in tribal- dominated areas of Kalahandi and Rayagada districts, where he is known to have offered voluntary medical services. He was previously associated with NGOs such as DApRA and Swasthya Swaraj, which operated in Kerpai village under Kalahandi district, though he is no longer affiliated with them. (ii) On 30.09.2023, the petitioner was allegedly found circulating pamphlets, maps, and anti-mining materials in villages around the Sijimali Hills, which are the proposed site of a bauxite mining project. This incident was recorded in Kashipur Police Station GD Entry No. 09 dated 30.09.2023, and was later cited in official communications as indicative of his involvement in ongoing anti-mining activities. (iii) On 04.06.2025, the Superintendent of Police, Rayagada, sent a report to the Collector and District Magistrate, Rayagada, warning of a proposed large gathering at Sunger Hatapada on 05.06.2025, coinciding with World Environment Day. The gathering was reportedly being organized by Maa Mati Mali Suraksha Samiti, an anti-mining group, and included a list of 24 individuals, among them the petitioner, said to be involved in mobilizing attendance. (iv) Based on the police communication and inputs suggesting a possible breach of public order, the Collector and District Magistrate, Rayagada, issued Order No. 1556 dated 04.06.2025 under Section 163(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, prohibiting Page 2 of 19
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 the petitioner and 23 others from entering the district of Rayagada for a period of two months. The order was passed ex parte under Section 163(2) BNSS, citing urgency and risk to public tranquillity. (v) The planned event at Sunger was scheduled on the local weekly market day, which draws significant footfall from surrounding villages. Intelligence inputs anticipated a gathering of 6,000 to 7,000 people, and local residents submitted a written complaint expressing concern about potential law-and-order issues due to the timing and scale of the meeting. (vi) Authorities cited several prior incidents in support of their action, including Kashipur PS Case Nos. 202/2024, 728/2025, and 110/2025, all of which are under investigation and involve allegations of violence, obstruction of official duties, and damage to public property during protests linked to the anti-mining movement. Some of the individuals allegedly involved in those cases were reported to be associated with the petitioner. (vii) The petitioner subsequently filed an objection under Section 163(5) of BNSS, 2023, challenging the prohibitory order. The objection, sent by post from Cuttack, was received by the district administration and is currently stated to be under consideration, with further proceedings under Section 163(7) pending. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Page 3 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 (i) The impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner a hearing, either before or after its issuance, despite the mandatory requirement under Section 163(7) of BNSS. This is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. (ii) The restriction imposed for two months is grossly disproportionate to the alleged one-day protest event scheduled on 05.06.2025, suggesting non-application of mind and arbitrariness in the Collector’s decision. (iii) The order amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on the petitioner’s rights under Article 19, specifically the freedom of movement, freedom of speech and expression, and right to peaceful assembly, in the absence of any demonstrable threat or misconduct. (iv) The prohibition on entry into Rayagada district directly impacts the petitioner’s ability to discharge his professional duties and voluntary healthcare services, thereby affecting the tribal population’s access to medical care. (v) The impugned order equates peaceful environmental protest in a Scheduled Area with a law and order threat, which is an unfounded and dangerous precedent. It reflects a superficial understanding of constitutional dissent, indigenous rights, and environmental justice. (vi) The petitioner was neither involved in nor aware of the protest, and the inclusion of his name in the police communication appears arbitrary and without factual basis. Page 4 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 (vii) The order was never formally served upon the petitioner; he became aware of it through social media, which is procedurally improper and defeats the purpose of due notice. (viii) The Collector’s observation that environmental protest obstructs development is untenable, particularly when unchecked environmental degradation poses a greater long-term threat to sustainable development. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The prohibitory order was issued in accordance with Sections 163(1) to (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Given the perceived urgency and potential threat to public order, the ex-parte nature of the order was invoked under Section 163(2), which permits such action in emergent situations. The petitioner has since submitted an objection under Section 163(5), which, according to the authorities, is currently under consideration, and the process mandated under Section 163(7) for providing an opportunity of hearing is stated to be underway. (ii) The petitioner is perceived to pose a threat to public peace and order owing to his alleged consistent efforts to instigate tribal communities against government initiatives, particularly in connection with the Sijimali mining project. Authorities apprehended that the planned protest on 05.06.2025, if permitted to proceed, could have led to significant congestion, economic disruption, and potential violence, Page 5 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 especially as it was scheduled to coincide with the weekly market day at Sunger, which typically witnesses high public footfall. (iii) The petitioner is alleged to have a “chequered past” involving anti- mining activities, including the distribution of pamphlets, participation in undisclosed meetings, and encouragement of unauthorized assemblies. It is further claimed that he has mobilized individuals to disrupt official functions, obstruct government- conducted surveys, and in certain instances, incite actions leading to attacks on police stations and interference with law enforcement operations. (iv) Intelligence inputs received by the authorities indicated possible linkages between the planned gathering and extremist or Naxalite elements active in the region. The protest was reportedly expected to be attended by several known external activists, who were allegedly involved in efforts to provoke tribal communities into adopting unlawful means of resistance against the Sijimali mining project. (v) Petitioner’s claim that his participation was for environmental awareness is characterized as misleading, since pamphlets and intelligence reports indicate an explicit anti-mining and anti- government agenda. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The material facts are largely undisputed. Dr. Sequeira, known for advocating environmental and tribal rights, had publicized plans to Page 6 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 hold a peaceful demonstration on 5th June 2025, World Environment Day, at a weekly market near Sijimali Hills. The purpose was to voice opposition to mining projects perceived to threaten the local ecology and tribal communities. It appears no violent incidents from the petitioner’s past protests were reported, and the June 5 gathering was intended as a peaceful assembly. However, on the morning of 05.06.2025, the District Magistrate, acting under Section 163 BNSS, issued an order directing Dr. Sequeira’s exclusion from Rayagada district for two month. The order cited an “urgent need to prevent danger to public peace and tranquility,” referring to intelligence
Legal Reasoning
reports of a large congregation and potential law and order problems. The order was passed ex parte without prior notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner alleges he came to know of the ban only when he was restrained by police at the district border on that day, effectively stifling the planned protest. He was not served the order immediately, allegedly undermining his ability to challenge it promptly. 7. At this juncture, following key issues arise for determination: (i) Whether the situation on 05.06.2025 presented a “clear and present danger” or imminent threat to public order justifying the drastic step of banning the petitioner’s entry into the district; (ii) Whether the impugned order meets the test of necessity and proportionality in restricting the petitioner’s fundamental rights; and (iii) Whether due process, including the opportunity of hearing and proper service, as followed in issuing the order. These issues are addressed in turn, Page 7 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 keeping in mind the constitutional framework and precedents governing the right to protest vis-(cid:224)-vis public order. 8. On facts, the Court finds no material indicating that Dr. Sequeira’s proposed peaceful protest posed an immediate and grave threat of violence or public disorder. It is notable that the protest was planned as a one-day, peaceful gathering to coincide with World Environment Day, lacking any suggestion of arms or inflammatory agenda. The State’s concerns were admittedly based on a generalized apprehension that any large protest might attract miscreants or degenerate into clashes, especially with limited police presence on that day. However, our constitutional jurisprudence demands a fairly high threshold of actual risk before fundamental rights can be curtailed. The U.S. Supreme Court’s classic formulation in Whitney v. California1 reminds us the following: injury cannot alone “Fear of serious justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one. Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability. Propagation of the criminal state of mind by teaching 1 71 L. Ed. 1095. Page 8 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 syndicalism increases it. Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on. The wide difference between advocacy and incitement, between preparation and attempt, between assembling and conspiracy, must be borne in mind. In order to support a finding of clear and present danger it must be shown either that immediate serious violence was to be expected or was advocated, or that the past conduct furnished reason to believe that such advocacy was then contemplated.” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. The “clear and present danger” test, as understood in our law, essentially requires that the State has to show a close proximity between the expression or assembly and likelihood of a substantive evil, like violence or public disorder, such that the evil is almost certain to occur unless the restriction is imposed. In the present case, the opposite parties have not demonstrated any specific acts of the petitioner inciting violence, nor any concrete incident in the past where his involvement led to public disorder. 10. Mere conjecture or surmise that a protest on a market day could turn unruly is not enough. In this context, the Supreme Court in Rakesh Vaishnav v. Union of India2 dealing with the farmers’ protests, observed the following: “We clarify that this Court will not interfere with the protest in question. Indeed the right to protest is part of a fundamental right and can as a matter of fact, be exercised 2 WP(C) No. 1118 of 2020. Page 9 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 subject to public order. There can certainly be no impediment in the exercise of such rights as long as it is non-violent and does not result in damage to the life and properties of other citizens and is in accordance with law.” 11. Here, there was no allegation that the petitioner intended anything but a non-violent demonstration, nor any evidence of likely harm to life or property. Absent a clear and immediate threat of disorder, the extreme step of banishing a citizen from a whole district cannot find justification. Such exclusions order invert the clear and present danger test by treating peaceful political engagement as the danger itself, whereas in reality, the real danger is not posed by the protestor, but by an executive impulse that seeks to insulate industrial power from public accountability. This Court is inclined to agree that the record reveals an overreaction by the administration, effectively branding a peaceful protestor as a public safety threat without concrete basis. 12. The duty of the State to maintain order is undeniable, particularly during periods of heightened logistical demand. The Court notes that, at the relevant time, the Ratha Yatra festivities in Puri had necessitated substantial police deployment across the State, including the diversion of personnel from districts such as Rayagada. This had temporarily constrained the district’s capacity to manage large gatherings. While such exigencies required careful administrative balancing, the temporary unavailability of adequate police force due to statewide festival duties could not, by itself, justify a blanket Page 10 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 prohibition on peaceful protest. The Constitution does not permit a scenario where civil liberties become negotiable each time enforcement capacity is stretched. In such instances, the State’s obligation is to innovate, coordinate, and regulate. It is not permitted to suppress. The difficulty of governance cannot be the basis for pre- emptive censorship of constitutional rights. 13. Even assuming some public order concerns existed, the next inquiry is whether the action taken was proportionate to the threat. The principle of proportionality has firmly taken roots in Indian constitutional law as a measure of evaluating restrictions on fundamental rights. In the nine-judge Bench of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India3, the Supreme Court applied a four- pronged test for proportionality and held as follows: “…a measure restricting a right must, first, serve a legitimate goal (legitimate goal stage); it must, secondly, be a suitable means of furthering this goal (suitability or rational connection stage); thirdly, there must not be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative (necessity stage); and fourthly, the measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right-holder (balancing stage).” 14. There is little doubt that preventing public disorder is a legitimate aim under our Constitution under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). The impugned order was rationally connected to that aim in the sense that removing a perceived instigator could, in theory, reduce the 3 2019 (1) SCC 1. Page 11 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 chance of crowds gathering or clashing. However, the State’s action falters on the necessity and balancing steps of the test. 15. This Court finds that the authorities had less drastic alternatives at hand. For instance, the police could have engaged with the petitioner and imposed reasonable conditions on the conduct of the protest, such as limiting it to a particular venue or time, ensuring it remained peaceful, etc. rather than flatly prohibiting his presence. Section 163 BNSS itself allows orders to direct any person to abstain from certain acts; it does not inherently mandate complete territorial exile unless absolutely unavoidable. Here, a tailored order could have addressed the apprehensions. Banning the petitioner from the entire district for two months overshoots the professed goal. It targets the petitioner in a manner that appears more punitive than preventive, effectively punishing him for his viewpoint. 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India4 highlighting the perils of restrictions that are disproportionate held as follows: “To consider the immediate impact of restrictions upon the realization of the fundamental rights, the decision maker must prioritize the various factors at stake. Such attribution of relative importance is what constitutes proportionality. It ought to be noted that a decision which curtails fundamental rights without appropriate justification will be classified as disproportionate. The concept of proportionality requires a restriction to be tailored in accordance with the territorial extent of the restriction, the stage of emergency, nature of urgency, duration of such restrictive measure and 4 AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1308. Page 12 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 nature of such restriction. The triangulation of a restriction requires the consideration of appropriateness, necessity and the least restrictive measure before being imposed.” 17. Likewise, the necessity of extending the ban for a full two months was not demonstrated with any cogent reason. If the concern was the protest around 05.06.2025, an order narrowly covering that date or a few days around it might possibly be debated as necessary; but extending it to 60 days suggests an intent to quell ongoing dissent rather than meet an immediate exigency. 18. The fundamental right to movement granted under (Article 19(1)(d)) can be curtailed in the interest of the general public, but here the general public’s interest in order could have been protected by far less intrusive means. The freedoms of speech and assembly, at the core of this case, were curtailed without “appropriate justification” and thus the action falls foul of the proportionality doctrine as reaffirmed in Anuradha Bhasin (supra). 19. Lastly, the manner in which the order was issued raises concerns of procedural unreasonableness. It is true that Section 163 of the BNSS permits ex parte orders in urgent cases. The law recognizes that a pre-decisional hearing may not always be feasible in crisis situations. However, even in such cases, the affected person is ordinarily entitled to a prompt post-decisional hearing or at least a chance to object soon after the immediate urgency passes. In the present case, the petitioner was not heard before the order, and from the records it appears he was not even effectively communicated the grounds Page 13 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 immediately after. The order itself must disclose the material facts and reasons; this is a statutory requirement to enable judicial review and to inform the person concerned of why the drastic step was taken. The exclusion order as produced before this Court contains only very generic recitals of “apprehended danger to public peace” without specific facts. This perfunctory approach does not inspire confidence that the decision was made after carefully balancing the petitioner’s rights against the public interest. 20. The State’s argument that the petitioner could have approached the magistrate or Government for rescinding the order is noted. However, such an opportunity is meaningful only if the person knows the content and grounds of the order in time. Denial of proper service and lack of communication of reasons are classic markers of arbitrariness. Transparency is a component of procedural reasonableness. In the instant case, the non-service of the order and failure to hear the petitioner even after passing the order, during two- month span, led this Court to conclude that the action suffered from administrative unreasonableness and violated the principles of natural justice. The rule of law demands that executive measures that infringe fundamental rights are not only substantively justifiable but also arrived at through a fair process. Both these aspects are deficient here. 21. A recurring theme in our constitutional scheme is balancing security and liberty. The State is justified in curbing violent or seditious activities. Article 19 itself was amended (in 1951) to add “public Page 14 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 order” as a ground for restricting speech and assembly, recognizing the need to deal with threats to tranquility. Yet, the judiciary has consistently drawn a line between public order and mere inconvenience or annoyance. In Superintendent, Central Prison v. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia5, the Supreme famously propounded that there must be a proximate nexus between the speech/act and public disorder; a very remote or fanciful connection will not do. The relevant excerpts are produced below: “The limitation imposed in the interests of public order to be a reasonable restriction, should be one which has a proximate connection or nexus with public order, but not one far- fetched, hypothetical or problematical or too remote in the chain of its relation with the public order.” 22. Here, the State’s fear that a protest could lead to unrest is, at best, a distant possibility rather than an imminent reality. If such reasoning were accepted, virtually any protest could be banned on the speculation that “something might go wrong.” That would render the fundamental right to protest nugatory. As the petitioner rightly pointed out, treating lawful protest as a security threat signals not the protection of order, but a breakdown of democratic confidence. A government confident in its legitimacy and support of law will engage with protesters, not banish them. The constitutional protection of dissent is not a mere idealistic slogan; it has been acknowledged by courts as essential to the democratic fabric of the nation. Dissent, especially on environmental and livelihood issues 5 1960 AIR 633. Page 15 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 affecting the community, often furthers the public interest by holding authorities accountable. 23. The public trust doctrine invoked from M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath6 serves as a reminder that the State’s allegiance should lie with protecting common resources for the people, not siding with private commercial interests against the people. While the State in the present case may not explicitly be taking sides, the effect of its action was to quell opposition to a project, thereby indirectly according preference to the mining activity over the voices of those concerned about its fallout. 24. That said, this Court is mindful that the right to protest, though fundamental, must be exercised peacefully and within the bounds of law. Nothing in this judgment should be read as condoning violent demonstrations or allowing protesters to infringe the rights of others. Indeed, the Supreme Court in Rakesh Vaishnav (Supra) underscored that protests can continue “without impediment” only so long as they remain non-violent and in accord with law. Thus, if Dr. Sequeira’s protest had been shown to be a cover for incitement or riot, the State could legitimately take action including arrest of troublemakers or dispersal of the gathering under appropriate laws. However, preventively criminalizing the act of protest itself by way of a broad order is a step too far. Our constitutional ethos does not permit a slide into a police state mentality where executive convenience trumps citizen liberty. 6 AIR ONLINE 1996 SC 711. Page 16 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 25. In many democracies, courts have played an important role in protecting the right to protest while also recognizing the need for public order. In the United Kingdom, courts applying the Human Rights Act use proportionality to judge police restrictions on protests. In the United States, courts require that any limits on protests in public spaces be specific and limited to time, place, and manner. Similarly, in India, the High Courts and the Supreme Court have held that when protests may cause inconvenience or disorder, the right approach is to regulate them reasonably. This could mean setting alternate locations or routes rather than banning protests entirely. This principle is clear: in a constitutional democracy, the government should focus on dialogue and management rather than exclusion. V. CONCLUSION: 26. In view of the above analysis, this Court holds that the exclusion order dated 05.06.2025 issued under Section 163 BNSS against Dr. Randall Sequeira is hereby quashed. The petitioner is free to enter Rayagada district forthwith. Any consequential criminal proceedings or entries in records arising solely from the enforcement of that order shall stand expunged. 27. The State authorities, particularly the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate of Rayagada, are directed to facilitate the petitioner’s right to organize and participate in peaceful protests, as guaranteed by law. This Court notes that, at the relevant time, a large contingent of Odisha’s police force had been deployed in Puri for the Ratha Yatra and Bahuda Yatra festivities, which had temporarily Page 17 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 reduced the police presence in other districts, including Rayagada. The State’s concerns regarding crowd control and public safety during that period were therefore not unfounded. However, with the conclusion of these festivities, such constraints no longer persist, and the State is expected to provide the necessary support to ensure the petitioner’s constitutional rights are upheld without further delay. 28. Hence, in light of the circumstances outlined above, the following operational guidelines shall govern the petitioner’s exercise of the right to protest and the State’s corresponding duties: a) Prior Notification: The petitioner or any group intending to organize a protest shall provide the District Administration with prior written notice specifying the date, time, venue, estimated attendance, and purpose of the demonstration. b) Duty to Cooperate: The petitioner and his associates shall fully cooperate with the local authorities to ensure coordination, lawful conduct, and minimization of public inconvenience. c) State Facilitation: The District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Rayagada, shall designate a suitable time, place, and manner for holding the protest. This must be done in consultation with the organizers and in a manner that ensures the balance between public order and freedom of expression. d) Reasonable Restrictions: The authorities may impose lawful and proportionate restrictions to maintain peace and order. These may include, but not limited to: i. Limitation on the duration and timing of the event Page 18 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Jul-2025 16:55:05 ii. Restrictions on sound amplification iii. Regulation of crowd size iv. Measures for traffic and access management e) Protestor Responsibility: The petitioner, through his counsel, shall undertake to comply with all conditions imposed by the administration. He shall ensure that any demonstration conducted is peaceful, non-violent, and non-obstructive. f) Post-Protest Review: After any such protest, the administration my conduct a brief post-event review to assess compliance and identify any issues for future coordination. 29. This Court reiterates that these guidelines are specific to the present case and are framed in light of the unique facts and administrative concerns raised before the Court. They are not intended to dilute or substitute the constitutional protections available to citizens at large under Article 19 of the Constitution. Any violation of the above terms by the Petitioner or his associates shall entitle the authorities to take action strictly in accordance with law. Conversely, arbitrary denial of protest rights without just cause will be subject to judicial scrutiny.
Decision
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands allowed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. 30. 31. 32. Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th July, 2025/ (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Page 19 of 19