Frequent Imposition Of Section 144 An Abuse Of Power? This Is What The Logical Indian Audience Had To Say
We asked you, our readers, whether you think the frequent imposition of Section 144 is an abuse of power? These are some of the responses we received.
As massive protests against CAA stirs the country, The Logical Indian brings to you a comprehensive view on the imposition of Section 144.
We asked you, our readers, whether you think the frequent imposition of Section 144 is an abuse of power?
Some of you were of the opinion that in its most brutal form, it is being used frequently to impose blanket bans on protests, break gatherings using undue violence and force, enforce restrictions and curfews and criminalise peaceful protestors, thereby deterring public expression.
While some of you felt, that Section 144 is a necessary measure to control the flailing law and order situation throughout the country.
India has been dropped by 10 places to 51 due to "an erosion of civil liberties in the country" in The Economist Intelligence Unit's 2019 Democracy Index.
The index ranks countries based on their scores on 60 indicators and the classifies the governments in four types of regime: full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime and authoritarian regime.
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled for the preventive use of Section 144 when there is an apprehension of danger, subject to it being in the nature of an "emergency" and for the purpose of preventing obstruction and annoyance or injury to a person lawfully employed.
However, it also spelt in clear terms that imposing 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.'
The article is a part of our campaign on the repetitive imposition of a draconian colonial-era regulation.