Section 144 of CrPC in Indian Constitution: Power to Issue Orders in Urgent Cases of Nuisance or Danger, Curfew, Lockdown, and Right to Protest | Public Order Maintenance

In recent times, Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) has garnered significant attention amidst protests and public gatherings across various states in India. This legal provision empowers authorities to swiftly address situations of perceived danger or nuisance by restricting assemblies and communications.

With the intensification of protests against various government actions, including the Citizenship Amendment Act, several state governments have invoked Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Understanding its nuances and implications is crucial for both the public and authorities alike, as it plays a pivotal role in maintaining public order while balancing individual rights.

What is Section 144 of CrPC?

Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) grants certain magistrates the power to issue orders to prevent and address urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.

Specifically, a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the state government can exercise this authority.

Key Provisions of Section 144

Issuance of Orders:

• A magistrate can issue a written order, stating the material facts of the case, to direct any person to abstain from certain acts or take certain actions concerning property in their possession or management.
• The order aims to prevent obstruction, annoyance, or injury to any person lawfully employed, protect human life, health, or safety, maintain public tranquillity, and prevent riots or affrays.

Emergency Orders:

• In cases of emergency or where timely serving of notice is impractical, orders can be passed ex parte, meaning without the presence of the party against whom the order is directed.

Scope of Orders:

• Orders can be directed to individuals, residents of a specific area, or the public at large frequenting a particular place or area.

Duration of Orders:

• No order under Section 144 can remain in force for more than two months from the date of issuance. However, the state government can extend this period, not exceeding six months, if deemed necessary to prevent danger to human life, health, or safety or to prevent riots or affrays.

Modification and Rescission:

• Any magistrate can rescind or alter an order on their own motion or upon the application of an aggrieved person.
• The state government also holds the power to rescind or alter orders made under the proviso to sub-section (4).

Right to Be Heard:

• The magistrate or state government must provide an opportunity for the aggrieved party to present their case before rejecting any application to rescind or alter the order. The reasons for rejection must be recorded in writing.

Application of Section 144

Section 144 is often used to prohibit assemblies of four or more individuals or to order mobile phone companies to block voice, SMS, or Internet communications in specific geographical areas. This is typically done to prevent the escalation of protests into riots or other disturbances.

Judicial Interpretations of Section 144

Over the years, the judiciary has upheld the constitutionality of Section 144 while emphasizing its reasonable use:

1. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Case (1967): The Supreme Court held that a democracy cannot function if public order is allowed to be freely disturbed by sections of the citizenry.
2. Madhu Limaye vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate Case (1970): A seven-judge bench upheld the constitutionality of Section 144, asserting that the potential for abuse of the law is not a valid reason to strike it down. The Court also ruled that restrictions imposed under Section 144 are within the “reasonable restrictions” framework of Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which pertains to the right to freedom of speech and expression.
3. Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012): The Supreme Court criticized the government’s use of Section 144 against a sleeping crowd, stating that such provisions should be used only in grave circumstances for maintaining public peace. The emergency must be sudden, and the consequences must be sufficiently grave to warrant such an order.

Issues and Concerns

While Section 144 is a powerful tool for maintaining public order, it raises several concerns:

• Broad and Vague Terms: The terms “cases of apprehended danger or nuisance” are broad and can grant magistrates significant discretionary power.
• Immediate Remedies: The immediate remedy against an order under Section 144 is a revision application to the same magistrate who issued the order. While an aggrieved individual can approach the High Court via a writ petition (Article 226), this process can be time-consuming.

Section 144 CrPC, Curfew, and Lockdown: Key Differences

As protests and public gatherings become more frequent, different legal provisions are invoked by authorities to maintain law and order. Here’s a detailed comparison between Section 144 of the CrPC, curfew, and lockdown:

Section 144 of CrPC

Definition and Application:

• Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers magistrates to issue orders prohibiting assemblies of four or more persons in a specified area.
• It aims to prevent obstruction, annoyance, injury to persons lawfully employed, or disturbance of public tranquillity.

Enforcement:

• Violation of Section 144 can lead to legal action under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), for disobeying a public servant’s lawful order.

Curfew

Definition and Application:

• Curfew imposes severe restrictions on movement and activities within a specified area for a designated period.
• Typically imposed during emergencies or civil disturbances, curfews are enforced by police and administrative authorities.

Restrictions:

• During curfew hours, public movement is heavily restricted, and all non-essential services including schools, offices, and shops are closed.
• Only authorized personnel, such as administrative and law enforcement officials, are allowed on the streets.

Authority:

• The authority for imposing and lifting a curfew generally rests with the District Collector or Police Commissioner.

Lockdown

Definition and Application:

• A lockdown, often enforced under the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897, restricts movement and non-essential activities to prevent the spread of diseases.
• It can be imposed by local authorities, typically a District Collector or Chief Medical Officer.

Scope of Restrictions:

• Unlike curfew, which focuses on movement and public order, a lockdown primarily targets public health emergencies.
• Essential services such as hospitals, pharmacies, grocery stores, and essential manufacturing remain operational.

Legal Implications:

• During a lockdown, restrictions on movement are enforced through legal provisions specific to public health emergencies.
• While authorities can advise compliance, arrests are limited and require judicial approval under certain circumstances.

Key Differences

1. Purpose: Section 144 focuses on maintaining public order and preventing disturbances. Curfew and lockdown are imposed for emergencies, with curfew addressing public order and lockdown primarily addressing public health.
2. Enforcement: Section 144 involves restrictions on assembly and movement under CrPC. Curfew involves complete restrictions on movement with strict enforcement by police. Lockdown restricts non-essential activities under public health directives.
3. Legal Basis: Section 144 operates under the CrPC, focusing on immediate public order. Curfew and lockdown derive authority from specific laws like Epidemic Diseases Act for public health emergencies.
4. Duration and Scope: Section 144 and curfew are typically shorter in duration, focused on immediate threats. Lockdowns can be longer and involve broader restrictions affecting economic and social activities.

Section 144 of CrPC, curfew, and lockdown is crucial for citizens and authorities alike. Each legal provision serves distinct purposes, ranging from maintaining public order to addressing emergencies such as epidemics.

In conclusion, section 144 of the CrPC is a critical legal provision for maintaining public order and addressing urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. However, its broad terms and significant discretionary power necessitate cautious and judicious application.

Judicial interpretations have upheld its constitutionality while emphasizing its reasonable use to prevent abuse. As citizens, it is essential to be aware of such legal provisions and their implications on our rights and freedoms.