The Gujarat High Court has criticised Ahmedabad Police for repeatedly imposing Section 144 without any real emergency, calling the practice arbitrary and unconstitutional. The ruling came in a petition filed by anti-CAA protesters who said the state used the law to suppress peaceful dissent.
In a major decision supporting democratic rights, the Gujarat High Court has struck down the Ahmedabad Police’s long-running practice of issuing continuous Section 144 orders.
The court strongly criticised the state authorities, calling their actions
“arbitrary, unjustified, and violative of fundamental rights”
and reminding them that emergency powers cannot be used as a daily rule.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Stays Suspension of Jamia Students for Campus Protest
Justice M.R. Mengdey delivered the judgment on December 4, and while the order cancels a 2019 notification, it also highlights a deeper problem in Gujarat’s policing system.
For many years, the police were repeatedly issuing Section 144 orders one after another, which critics say was often used to stop peaceful protests and control public gatherings.
The High Court asked an important question:
“This was never an emergency – so why the endless bans?”
The petitioners, who were booked for peacefully opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, argued that from 2016 to 2019, the police kept enforcing Section 144 almost continuously, leaving barely any time when public assembly was actually allowed.
The court agreed with the petitioners. It clearly stated that Section 144 is meant for short-term, exceptional situations, but Ahmedabad Police had turned it into a constant restriction on public movement and peaceful protests.
The court said the state was issuing the orders without giving any real reason or justification and was relying on routine notifications instead of proving that any emergency existed.
A very important point noted by the court was that the police did not record proper reasons before imposing these repeated restrictions.
ALSO READ: 2020 Delhi Riots| Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Tasleem Ahmed
There was also no transparency. Order after order was issued, with no clear explanation about why such strong measures were needed.
The High Court also observed that the public was hardly aware of these restrictions. The notices were only published in the official gazette, which ordinary citizens rarely check.
The court criticised this approach and said that a modern government cannot depend on mere formalities when people’s fundamental rights are affected.
In a sharp remark, the court stated that authorities “clearly circumvented” the legal safeguards under Section 144 by mechanically issuing fresh orders again and again.
According to the court, this created a shortcut that reduced accountability and allowed the police to use emergency powers without real grounds.
The bench also pointed out that similar broad and repeated orders were being issued under Section 37 of the Gujarat Police Act. This shows, the court suggested, that the practice is part of a larger pattern in the state’s policing method, not just a one-time issue.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Criticizes Police Officer for Using a “Manipulated Video” in 2020 Riots Case
The judgment acts as a strong warning to Gujarat Police. By calling out the repeated, unjustified and unexplained use of a powerful legal tool, the court has shown that the state police were normalising emergency laws, restricting peaceful demonstrations and weakening constitutional freedoms.
For a police force that often talks about its effectiveness, this verdict highlights a deeper worry: that the policing culture in the state seems more focused on control than on transparency, fairness and accountability.
Click Here to Read More On Anti-CAA Protesters
