Advocate General Birendra Saraf, alongside public prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar, proposed that the Bombay High Court might consider issuing an order to prevent Jarange Patil from entering the city. Saraf mentioned, “The court has the potential to halt them if feasible.” He acknowledged the state’s inability to prohibit protests outright but pointed out the impracticality of Jarange Patil’s approach, which involved bringing hundreds of thousands of people into the city’s core using bullock carts and tractors.
Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January24) has declined to issue an injunction against Maratha reservation activist Manoj Jarange-Patil, who has planned an indefinite hunger strike in Mumbai on Republic Day. This decision comes amidst concerns about potential disruptions and logistical challenges in the city.
Also read- Bombay High Court Overrules 40-Year Delay In Land Acquisition Case (lawchakra.in)
The court’s decision was influenced by the Supreme Court’s stance in the Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh) vs Commissioner of Police case, which addressed the limits of the right to protest as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court had emphasized that indefinite occupation is not an acceptable form of peaceful protest, particularly in reference to the protests following the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019.
Activist Gunratna Sadavarte had filed a petition seeking the court’s intervention to prevent Jarange-Patil’s march, citing the logistical challenge posed by his following, which is reportedly in the millions. Sadavarte expressed concerns about the potential impact on Mumbai, similar to what was observed in Pune, and the possibility of the state’s inaction due to political pressure.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf shared these concerns, acknowledging the right to protest but emphasizing the need for responsibility. He suggested that the court could halt the march and proposed an alternative location outside Mumbai for a peaceful demonstration. Saraf also noted that the state had not received any formal application from Jarange-Patil for permission to protest at a specific location.
“We are not against their right to protest but somebody should take responsibility. We cannot permit an indefinite number of people marching to the city. We are equally concerned, if possible, the court can stop them,”
he added.
He further said,
“If so many people enter Mumbai and it goes out of their control… If you want to protest, the state can’t stop you. But you can’t do it in such a way,”
The court, after considering the advocate general’s assurances, directed the government to ensure a suitable public space is provided for the protesters to demonstrate peacefully. A notice was also issued to Jarange-Patil, to be served through the Azad Maidan police station. The court is set to deliberate further on this matter on February 14.
Jarange-Patil, advocating for Maratha community reservation from the OBC quota, plans to commence his hunger strike on January 26 in Mumbai, at either Azad Maidan or Shivaji Park. He reached Pune on Tuesday, leading a rally of over one lakh people to press their demand for reservation for the Maratha community in government jobs and education.
The High Court, while refusing to restrain Jarange-Patil, emphasized that the state government has the power to act to ensure that city roads are not blocked. The state counsels assured the court that necessary steps would be taken to maintain law and order.
“State can take appropriate measures to ensure roads are not blocked. Respondent 9 (Jarange) is not before us so we cannot pass an order against him,”
Justice Gadkari said.
“Learned advocate general submitted that the state would follow the legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh) vs the commissioner of police and others,”
the court said
The court highlighted the Supreme Court’s view that occupation of public ways is not acceptable and that protests must be peaceful.
In response to the court’s query, Saraf suggested providing protesters with a location outside Mumbai. He expressed concerns about the potential for a volatile situation and the possibility of the city coming to a standstill. Sadavarte pointed out the lack of action against Jarange Patil, attributing it to divided opinions among ministers on the issue.
This development marks a crucial moment in the ongoing debate over Maratha reservations and the right to peaceful protest, balancing the need for public order with the fundamental rights of citizens.
Also read- Man Rapes Minor Daughter For A Year, Rajasthan High Court Denies Abortion Plea (lawchakra.in)