"Strict Adherence To Safeguards Mandatory’": Gujarat HC Quashes Section 144 CrPC Notifications Issued During & After CAA Protests
The High Court held that preventive powers affecting fundamental rights must comply strictly with statutory safeguards and cannot be exercised mechanically or in disregard of constitutional protections.
Justice MR Mengdey, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court, while quashing a set of prohibitory orders issued during and after protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, has held that the procedural safeguards embedded in Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be reduced to an empty formality, particularly when restrictions are imposed on the exercise of fundamental rights.
The Court observed that such orders issued repeatedly without adequate justification violate the constitutional protections guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging multiple notifications issued by the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner under Section 144 CrPC and Section 37(1) of the Gujarat Police Act during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
A Single Bench of Justice M.R. Mengdey, upon examining the relevant records, observed that “powers have been exercised by the respondent authorities in utter disregard of the safeguards provided for exercise of the powers in question. Therefore, the exercise of powers by the authorities appears to be arbitrary in the present case. Therefore, the notification in question including the notification of the Police Commissioner dated 3rd November 2025, are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and therefore, are liable to be quashed and set aside”.
Background
The challenged notifications were issued in succession from 2016 onwards, creating continuous restrictions on public assembly in Ahmedabad. Petitioners argued that authorities extended prohibitions beyond the statutory period of two months by issuing back-to-back orders without fresh justification.
It was further contended that the orders lacked specific reasons reflecting any emergent circumstances and that they failed to comply with the requirement of wide publicity. The State argued that the notifications had expired and the petition no longer survived.
Court’s Observation
The Gujarat High Court, upon hearing the matter, held that the power under Section 144 CrPC is extraordinary and intended to be exercised only in situations requiring immediate prevention or speedy remedy, stating that the absence of material facts and the non-disclosure of threat perception indicated that the notifications were issued mechanically.
Relying on Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Bench held that such restrictions cannot be imposed merely because a protest is anticipated. The Court clarified that the orders must reflect specific and proximate reasons demonstrating a real likelihood of disturbance to public order.
“As per the safeguards as discussed by the Apex Court in Anuradha Bhasin (Supra), the material facts are also required to be mentioned in the order. The impugned notifications do not mention any such material facts. The safeguards and procedure prescribed in the Section are not an empty formality. Their strict adherence is mandatory as the impugned notifications propose to impose restrictions upon the citizens affecting their fundamental rights”, the Court remarked.
The Court also referred to Gulam Abbas v. State of Uttar Pradesh, noting that total prevention of assembly is permissible only where no lesser measure would suffice. The Court, while making these observations, remarked: “prior to resorting to exercise of powers under S.144 of the Code, it was incumbent upon the Respondent authorities to take recourse to the other measures available to them under the law for maintenance of peace and tranquility and it was only when those measures were found to be insufficient, the powers in question could have been exercised. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondent authorities had even taken recourse to the other measures and it was only upon their failure that the powers in question were exercised”.
The Bench further observed that issuing consecutive orders to extend restrictions effectively circumvents the statutory time limit under Section 144(4), while stressing that “the authorities are expected not to impose restrictions for the maximum permissible limit. Whereas, the authorities in the present case have evolved a unique mechanism of issuing consecutive orders for circumventing the statutory mandate. By resorting such tactics, the authorities have tried to restrict the rights of the citizens beyond the permissible limits prescribed by the statute”.
Further, while taking note that these orders were not publicised adequately to make the public aware of the same, the Bench highlighted: “In the present era, mere publication of such Notifications or orders in the official gazette would not be sufficient. Moreover, the public at large has no access to such official gazette. In the era, where several modes of mass communication, including social media platforms are available, it is incumbent upon the Respondent authorities to publish such Notifications / Orders by using such modes”.
On the contention raised by the respondents that the Notifications had lived their lives and are no more in force today, the Court noted that there would be many, including the Petitioners, who would be facing prosecution for violation of these Notifications. Therefore, the Court held that “these notifications were required to undergo the judicial scrutiny even after their expiry”.
Conclusion
Allowing the petitions, the High Court quashed the impugned Section 144 notifications and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. Authorities were directed to ensure strict compliance with statutory safeguards while issuing any future preventive orders that may affect fundamental rights.
Cause Title: Navdeep Mathur & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others
Appearances
Petitioners: Advocate B.S. Soparkar
State: Hardik A. Dave, Public Prosecutor; H.K. Patel, APP