Skip to main content

Right to protest

 Right to protest

Many publications and television stations have reported on farmers opposing the Farmers Bill 2020 and marching from Punjab and Haryana to the capital city. Some see it as a political plot, while others see it as a real attempt to block the bill's ultimate approval owing to inadequacies.

The demonstration was organised on a large scale, and the farmers were able to meet with officials, but they were not the only ones who suffered. Residents must have had to deal with a lot of difficulties as well.

Protesting is a basic human right.

The objective of a protest by a group, community, or person is to show displeasure or defiance of the state's, government's, or organization's activities, policies, remarks, and so on.

Political waves drive the bulk of demonstrations, which are also an indication of people banding together to urge the state or government to confront their concerns and take actions to resolve them. Protests work in two ways in general. It demonstrates to the community, group, or person that they disagree with the policy, and it also assists governments in identifying their own flaws and working to improve them.

Protests in India have a long and distinguished history that dates back to the pre-independence period. For the past 72 years, India has been a British colony.

After a long series of rallies by freedom fighters, the people of that country became free citizens after independence. Mahatma Gandhi, popularly known as the Father of the Indian Nation, taught Indian folk how to protest in a nonviolent manner.

Whether it was the Swadeshi Movement of 1905 or the Satyagraha of 1930, these movements influenced the nation's history as a nonviolent anti-colonial resistance.

Indians battled valiantly to voice their opinions on colonial policies, to demonstrate opposition to British colonisation, and to speak out against the government.

When exercising one's right to peaceful protest in a democratic democracy, one must adhere to one's obligations or responsibilities.

Right to Protest has constitutional protections.

In every battle, Indians fought valiantly to openly voice their views on border approaches and to confront English colonisation and government officials. In a country with a vote-based government, one should follow one's obligations or responsibilities while also practising or appreciating peaceful dissent.

Under Article 51A, every citizen has a fundamental responsibility to protect public property and avoid violence during public demonstrations. As a result, invoking violence during public protests is a violation of that fundamental commitment.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution defines this right to freedom of speech and expression.

It stipulates that everyone has the right to express their own opinions, subject to acceptable limitations.

Article 19(1) guarantees the right to peaceful assembly without weapons (b). As a result, our Constitution grants Indian citizens the freedom to peaceful protest.

Article 19(2) provides reasonable constraints on the right to gather peacefully without weapons, as well as the right to freedom of speech and expression, as none of these rights are absolute in nature.

In the interests of India's sovereignty and integrity, the state's security, friendly relations with other states, public order, decency, or morality, or in connection to court disrespect, offence, or incitement to an offence, rational limits are required. The public as a government watchdog.

The public serves as a watchdog, closely monitoring the government's actions. The public has frequently acted as a watchdog and protested as a result of injustice or abuse of authority. During the Emergency in India, individuals of all political stripes protested.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree