New Delhi: The Calcutta High Court on Friday issued a stern warning against holding unauthorized rallies, stating that action will be taken against anyone violating the law.
The directive came in response to a petition filed by a local shop owner who claimed that frequent rallies were disrupting business along Nityadhan Mukherjee Road in Howrah.
The petitioner, a shopkeeper in Howrah, told the court that his daily business was suffering due to repeated rallies and processions passing through the area. Taking note of the concern, Justice Tirthankar Ghosh emphasized the importance of maintaining public order and protecting the rights of other citizens.
“Since the police authorities have refused permission to the organisation on July 28, in case there is any assembly of persons which disturbs the business of the present petitioner and/or other affected persons who intend to carry out their trade/profession or day-to-day work, police authorities would take steps against the violators in accordance with law,” Justice Ghosh stated in his order.
The rally in question was planned by a group of individuals who lost their jobs in state-run schools after a Supreme Court ruling in April. The apex court had canceled the appointments of approximately 26,000 teaching and non-teaching staff, citing irregularities in the recruitment process.
This particular group, however, claims innocence. According to them, they were appointed through legitimate procedures and are being unfairly penalized.
The state government, represented by Advocate General Kishore Dutta, informed the court that the police had refused permission for the July 28 rally. Dutta emphasized that the refusal was based on “cogent reasons,” although specific details were not disclosed during the hearing.
The court acknowledged the state’s position and made it clear that any gathering in defiance of the denial of permission would be considered unlawful. Law enforcement agencies have been directed to intervene and take legal action if necessary.
The High Court’s directive underlines the delicate balance between the right to protest and the need to ensure public convenience and lawful conduct. While the petitioners have the right to express their grievances, the court made it clear that such expression cannot come at the cost of public order and the livelihoods of others.
