Skip to main content

Section 144 Crpc

 section 144 of crpc?

Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) of 1973 authorises the Executive Magistrate of

any state or territory to issue an order to prohibit the assembly of four or more people in an area.

According to the law, every member of such 'unlawful assembly' can be booked for engaging in

rioting.

Section 144 is imposed in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger of some event that has

the potential to cause trouble or damage to human life or property. Section 144 of CrPC generally

prohibits public gathering.

Section 144 has been used in the past to impose restrictions as a means to prevent protests that can

lead to unrest or riots. The orders to impose Section 144 have been conferred to Executive

Magistrate when there is an emergency situation. Section 144 also restricts carrying any sort of

weapon in that area where it has been imposed and people can be detained for violating it. The

maximum punishment for such an act is three years.

According to the order under this section, there shall be no movement of public and all educational

institutions shall also remain closed and there will be a complete bar on holding any kind of public

meetings or rallies during the period of operation of this order.


Moreover, obstructing law enforcement agencies from dispersing an unlawful assembly is a

punishable offence. Section 144 also empowers the authorities to block the internet access.

144 CrPC bars the conduct of certain activities or actions or events which are allowed to be done in

regular course. It is imposed to ensure maintenance of peace and tranquillity in an area.


Why is Section 144 in News?

On September 17, 2020, restrictions under Section 144 were imposed in Mumbai by order of the

Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai. These restrictions were imposed in view of an unrelenting

surge in coronavirus cases in the city. Mumbai has been one of the most affected Indian cities in the

Covid-19 pandemic, which has had the entire world in its grips since early 2020.

On March 23, the Delhi government imposed Section 144 in Delhi to stop the spread of coronavirus,

which had claimed over 14,500 lives worldwide and had infected over 3,40,000 people. As the virus

spread its wings in India, several states for Delhi government and imposed Section 144 to restrain

local transmission of covid-19.

On February 12, Section 144 was imposed in North Goa district following intelligence inputs about

possible terror threat along the western coast. North Goa District Magistrate, in a notification said it

would be imposed for 60 days, from February 11 to April 10.


On February 8, internet snapped across Jammu and Kashmir and Section 144 was imposed in view of

the death anniversary of Maqbool Bhat and Afzal Guru.


Features of Section 144:

 It places restrictions on handling or transporting any kind of weapon in the given jurisdiction.

The maximum punishment for such an act is three years.

 According to the order under this section, there shall be no movement of public and all

educational institutions shall also remain closed.

 Further, there will be a complete bar on holding any kind of public meetings or rallies during

the period of operation of this order.

 It is deemed a punishable offence to obstruct law enforcement agencies from disbanding an

unlawful assembly.

 It also empowers the authorities to block internet access in the region. • The ultimate

purpose of Section 144 is to maintain peace and order in the areas where trouble could

erupt to disrupt the regular life.


Difference between Section 144 and Curfew:

Section 144 prohibits gathering of four or more people in the concerned area, while during curfew

people are instructed to stay indoors for a particular period of time. The government puts a

complete restriction on traffic as well.

Markets, schools, colleges and offices remain closed under the curfew and only essential services are

allowed to run on prior notice.


Court's Ruling on Section 144:

Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya case 1967, the Supreme Court held that “no democracy can exist if ‘public

order' is freely allowed to be disturbed by a section of the citizens”.

The Supreme court in another recent judgement said that the section cannot be used to impose

restrictions on citizens' fundamental right to assemble peacefully, cannot be invoked as a 'tool' to

'prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights'.

Conclusion Section 144 is a useful tool to help deal with emergencies. However, absence of any

narrow tailoring of wide executive powers with specific objectives, coupled with very limited judicial

oversight over the executive branch, makes it ripe for abuse and misuse. Before proceeding under

this section, the Magistrate should hold an enquiry and record the urgency of the matter.

There is a need to balance the granting of plenary powers by the legislature to deal with emergent


situations, and the need to protect the personal liberty and other freedoms granted to the citizens

under the fundamental rights of the Constitution

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
1 comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more