New 55% Off on All Courses - Enroll Now! Click Here

    Question

    In which of the following cases excessive use of Section

    144 CrPC was discussed
    A Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C Shilpa Mittal v. State Of NCT of Delhi Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Abhilasha v. Parkash and Ors. Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) Facts of the case The case primarily dealt with the suspension of the internet in the State of Jammu and Kashmir post revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, however, one of the issues in the case was regarding the excessive imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers a magistrate to impose restrictions on movement and speech in areas where trouble could erupt. Judgment of the court The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used as a tool to prevent legitimate expression of opinion. The court further held that Section 144 CrPC is not only remedial but also preventive, and shall be exercised only in cases where there is danger or apprehension of danger. The jurisdiction of Section 144 of CrPC shall not be used to suppress the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights. The Apex Court also directed the respondent-State or competent authorities to publish all orders in force and any future orders under Section 144 of CrPC and for suspension of telecom services, including internet, to enable the affected persons to challenge it before the High Court or appropriate forum. The Court further held that an order passed under Section 144 of CrPC should state the material facts to enable judicial review of the same. The power should be exercised in a bona fide and reasonable manner, and the same should be passed by relying on the material facts, indicative of application of mind which will enable judicial scrutiny.

    Practice Next