Rupinder Singh Sodhl and Another v. Union of India and Others

Judgment

The Order of the Court was delivered by [198) ) l s.c.t_ . I . CoANDRACHUD, c.J • . By these writ petitions, the . petitioners f whom are practising lawyers and some Members of tb' some o . d' Parliament, ask for an approprtate ·wnt . trectmg the State of Haryana and the. State of Uttar Pradesh to remove all ob!ltructions on the highways and to allo~ unhin~ered and .uninterc~pte.d the use . of highways1 railways and atrways w1thout mak~n~ any dtscrtmination against tbe.Akali Sikhs on th~ grou~d of rehg10n. Stated ·briefly, the case of the petitioners IS that ID the recent past, a movement . . was set afoot . in the State of Punjab consequent upon certain de~ands made by the members of the Akali' Party and as a result of that movement, large scale arrests of Sikhs were effected, bordering . ··an harassment and persecution.

It would appear that a declaration '·was made by certain Akali leaders that a Morcba would be taken 'to Delhi on November 19, 1982 which coincides with the inaguration of the Asiad games. Apprehending that the Morcha will interfere with the holding of the games, the border . States, particulariy . Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, appear to have taken certain measures to intercept the movement of Akalis across the border on to Delhi with a ·view to ensuring that the proposed Morcha is not staged in ·the manner feared and the Asiad not disrupted. . Mi. Hardev Singh who appears on behalf of the petitioners argues that highways are dedicated to the public and are meant for their · use for passin~ and repassing. Therefore, he argues, no obstruction can be placed thereon which will impede the free fiow of traffic, any such obstruction being per se unlawful. Having given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr. HardeY ·Singh, we agree that no one is entitled to barricade a highway so as to prevent members of the public from using it while they arc on their lawful business in the pursuit of normal avocations of life, But the police, whose duty it is to enforce law and order in the . wake of threatened inass agitations which are reasonably likely to lead to ~reach of public peace, are entitled in the discharge of that duty to tm~ose reasonable restraints on the physical movement of members ot the public in order to the protection of public property an~ the avoidance of needless inconvenience to other citizens~ tbe1r lawful pursuits.

But all such restraints on personalliber~Y· if at ~ 11 •• ha~e to be ·commensurate with the object which furDJShes the1r JUstification. They must be 1 ot exceed the mlntma an cann cdonst~amts of the particular situation either . in nature or tO urahon. Above 11 h ssioO, 8 • t ey cannot be used as engines of opprc: auLii-IPER s.INClH v. UNION OF INDIA (Chundrachud, C.J.) · 843 Ution harassment or the like. The sanctity of .... rsec person and of r, y baS to be ma111tame at all costs and that c Pnvac an not ever be violated under the gUJse ._of mamtenance of Jaw and order. _ We. feel uneasy and concerned to hear that pol' r Icemen o !Bin States have .

VIolated the norms uf decency in the' d 1• cer 1r ea sng 'th the situation artSmg out o t e Akah-Asiad tangle w 11'1 assume for Jack of better evidence ~hat the gn~vance made by the petitioners before us is plOre_ the ~~spnng of a natural feeling of resentment at ~ing stopped and ~earcbed . than 0~ any substantial invasion of their personal freed?m. )f and when there is proof of tatter, Courts oiay have to step m and stop the excesses. · But the rule of law requires that no person shall . be subjected to harsh, uncivilised or discriminatory. treatment . even when tbe objective is the securing of the paramount exigencies of law a~d order. Therefore, no. Sikh can be allowed to be so treated if our Constitution has to have any meaning and effect. _-We believe it not to be true that any Chief Minister has made a public declaration that police officers who will treat the Akali Sikhs barsbly will be dealt with lightly·.

It is incredible that any highly placed person in his senses can possibly make such a Statement, with the kind or pressure of public opinion and the press which, fortunately, we have in our count~ to-day. • There does not appear to be any executive order in existence, in writing at any rate, authorising the police to barricade any high· way or to subject every Sikh in motion~to physical restraint. But in . an appropriate case, a presumption may well be drawn as to the existence of such an order if it is found that the police are generally acting systematically according to a set and uniform pattern or are ~t~erwise engaged in a large scale operation of an! similar or IJDJster kind. For want of acceptable evidence, we hesitate to _dr~w that presumption in this case and will leave' the matter where It h~s ~or . t~e time being. Redress may, if so advised, be sought 10 IDdJvJduaJ cases by those aggrieved by the· alleged acts of excesses.

This order will dispose of these writ petitions. li.t.c. 0 I I .. :1,. I ; ... . T r 1 · t· i' I I '! 1 I I -·J i 1· I I I I . .r i. l H ! 'j i I