Shaheen bagh | Big decision of Supreme Court in Shahin Bagh case!

---

The Supreme Court has ruled that blocking the road in the name of anti-CAA agitation in Delhi's Shaheen Bagh is wrong. The court said the administration should have taken action in the case. The administration should have taken action in this case, which they did not. The court also hoped that such a situation would not happen in the future.

The court ruled in the case, which came about seven months after the protesters were removed from the Shaheen Bagh, that the people had a say in supporting and opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act. Emotions on social media have also intensified in today’s era. Those who protested presented their case through demonstrations. However, it was not appropriate to block the important road for a long time.

A bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said, It is the constitutional right of the people to express their views under Article 191 (a) of the Constitution and to protest peacefully on any issue under 191 (b). But, there are limits to this right. Public space cannot be cordoned off indefinitely. There should be no obstacles for other people to go. The administration should take action in such cases. Action should have been taken in this case as well. But that did not happen.

What's the matter?

In Delhi's Shaheen Bagh, people sat on the streets for about 100 days against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Millions of people were stranded on the main road connecting Delhi to Noida and Faridabad. Advocate Amit Sahni and BJP leader Nandkishore Garg had filed a petition in the Supreme Court against this.

Instead of ordering the mob to take action, the police were persuaded to remove them. Sanjay Hegde and Sadhana Ramachandran were appointed as the two correspondents for this work. Corona, meanwhile, disrupted the normal functioning of the court.

The matter finally came before a bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on September 21. On that day, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the judge that the protesters were removed from the streets after the lockdown was implemented. Following this information, the court deemed further hearing of the case unnecessary.