NEWSLETTER

Sign up to read weekly email newsletter

13 years 🥳 of Publication, 100k+ Stories, 30+ Countries

Legal Desire Media and Insights
Donate
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Reading: Violence, Nuisance Not the Part of Free Speech and Expression: Supreme Court on Darjeeling Hills Violence
Share
Aa
Legal Desire Media and InsightsLegal Desire Media and Insights
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Search
  • Law Firm & In-house Updates
  • Deals
  • Interviews
  • Insight
  • Read to know
  • Courses
Follow US
Legal Desire Media & Insights
Home » Blog » Violence, Nuisance Not the Part of Free Speech and Expression: Supreme Court on Darjeeling Hills Violence
JudgmentsNews

Violence, Nuisance Not the Part of Free Speech and Expression: Supreme Court on Darjeeling Hills Violence

By Apoorva Sinha 3 Min Read
Share

A writ petition was filed by Bimal Gurang, President of Gorkha Janmukti Morcha(GJM) praying to transfer of investigation all the FIRs filed against him and members of GJM to any independent investigation agency.  The FIRs were filed by West Bengal Government for violent unrest in the Darjeeling Hills.

A bench comprising of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan dismissed the petition. The Court did not find the case to be fit where it may exercise the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to transfer the case to an independent agency.

The Court checked the constitutional validity of demonstrations. The Court held,  “demonstrations whether political, religious or social or other demonstrations which create public, disturbances or operate as nuisances, or create or manifestly threaten some tangible public or private mischief, are not covered by protection under Article 19(1)”.

Public demonstrations which resort to violence, including stone-throwing are not protected by the fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

Justice Bhushan, wrote the judgment observed that Constitution only protects the right to assemble peacefully. It was also held that public speech should not incite the violence, such speech shall not be covered under Article 19 (1)(a). Right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms as protected by Article 19(1)(b) are the rights which have importance, the court held.

The court referred to the Kerala High Court’s judgment on ‘bandhs’ to evoke the judicial objections against methods used by particular groups or parties or sects to paralyze the entire citizenry.

“No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse the industry and commerce in the entire State or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens, not in sympathy with its viewpoint, from exercising their fundamental rights or from performing their duties for their own benefit or for the benefit of the State or the nation”, Justice Bhushan reproduced the verdict of the high court given almost 20 years ago.

 

You Might Also Like

Bombay High Court Decision: TikTok’s Petition Dismissed

The Honeymoon Murder

Harvard University Wins Legal Battle Against Trump’s International Student Ban

Sharmistha Panoli’s Case: Question on Free Speech

Shein Accused of Dark Patterns in EU

Subscribe

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

Sign Up For Daily Newsletter

Be keep up! Get the latest breaking news delivered straight to your inbox.

Don’t miss out on new posts, Subscribe to newsletter Get our latest posts and announcements in your inbox.

By signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Apoorva Sinha March 19, 2018
Share this Article
Facebook Twitter Email Copy Link Print
Leave a comment Leave a comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Bombay High Court Decision: TikTok’s Petition Dismissed

The Bombay High Court, in its detailed judgment, upheld the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks to refuse TikTok’s…

News
June 15, 2025

The Honeymoon Murder

A recent honeymoon murder case has shocked the entire nation. Indore-based businessman Raja Raghuvanshi was found dead in a gorge…

News
June 15, 2025

Harvard University Wins Legal Battle Against Trump’s International Student Ban

Harvard University has recently achieved a significant victory in its legal fight against the Trump administration’s attempt to ban the…

News
June 9, 2025

Sharmistha Panoli’s Case: Question on Free Speech

Sharmistha Panoli, a 22-year-old law student and social media influencer, who was arrested by West Bengal police on May 30,…

News
June 9, 2025

For over 10 years, Legal Desire provides credible legal industry updates and insights across the globe.

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Legal Marketing Service for Law Firms and Lawyers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Condition
  • Cancellation/Refund Policy

Follow US: 

Legal Desire Media & Insights

For Submissions/feedbacks/sponsorships/advertisement/syndication: office@legaldesire.com

Legal Desire Media & Insights 2023

✖
Cleantalk Pixel

Removed from reading list

Undo
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?