Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Calcutta, Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen has dismissed an intra-court appeal by a legislator against the police refusal to permit a proposed sit-in demonstration in front of Nabanna, the seat of the State Government. The Court upheld the Single Judge’s directions allowing the protest to be conducted at an alternative venue, instead of directly outside Nabanna, subject to specified conditions and timings. While noting that peaceful protest is protected, the Bench held that the entitlement to demonstrate is not an unfettered choice of venue and remains open to reasonable regulation on time and place in the interest of public order and the rights of others.

The dispute arose from an application filed by an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly seeking permission to organise a peaceful sit-in demonstration in front of Nabanna, the headquarters of the State Government. The proposed demonstration was scheduled for a specific date and was stated to involve a limited number of participants. The police administration rejected the request by a written communication, citing reasons linked to law-and-order considerations.

Also Read: IBC | Single Insolvency Plea Maintainable Against Intricately Linked Corporate Entities In Real Estate Projects: Supreme Court

This rejection was challenged before a Single Judge through a writ petition. The Single Judge declined to interfere with the rejection insofar as the proposed venue was concerned but permitted the demonstration to be held at an alternative location for specified hours, subject to conditions. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner preferred an intra-court appeal.

Before the Division Bench, the appellant contended that the right to protest and assemble peacefully is a fundamental right and that denial of permission to demonstrate in front of Nabanna amounted to an unreasonable restriction. Reliance was placed on earlier judicial precedents concerning public demonstrations and the scope of restrictions under constitutional and statutory provisions. The State opposed the appeal, asserting that there is no absolute right to protest at any chosen place and that reasonable restrictions could be imposed in the interest of public order, including by invoking prohibitory orders under the applicable law.

The Court observed that “the extent to which liberty prevails and the limit from where reasonable restriction begins was always a conundrum for the courts.” It referred to earlier constitutional exposition and recorded: “The major problem of human society is to combine that degree of liberty without which law is tyranny with that degree of law without which liberty becomes licence; and, the difficulty has been to discover the practical means of achieving this grand objective and to find the opportunity for applying these means in the ever-shifting tangle of human affairs.”

The Bench noted that “the said notification dated 27th December, 2025 issued under Section 163 BNSS by executive Magistrate for metropolitan area of Howrah was not called in question by the appellant.” It therefore stated: “In the absence thereof, there is no occasion for us to examine whether necessary ingredients for issuing such order under Section 163 of Cr.PC. were available or not.”

Relying on binding precedent, the Court recorded: “The Apex Court in the case of Babulal Parate (supra) has taken note of Sub-Clause 2 and 3 of Article 19 of the Constitution and made it clear that the right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution is not absolute right but can be subject to limitations specified in Clause 2 and 3 of the Constitution.”

The Court further stated: “The fundamental right flowing from Article 19 of the Constitution does not mean that the demonstration can take place at whatever place the demonstrators’ please.”

While referring to earlier decisions, the Bench recorded: “The relevant portions shows that right to assemble does not mean that said right can be exercised at any and every place.”

Addressing reliance placed on paragraph 54 of an earlier Supreme Court judgment, the Court stated: “The right to hold meeting in public places is subject to control of appropriate authority regarding the time and place of meeting.” It also noted the counter submission that “orders issued under Section 144 must be temporary, imminent and issued in emergent circumstance.”

The Court held that “in the absence of challenging the order issued under Section 163 BNSS, we find no reason to examine the legality, validity and propriety of the said order/action.”

Dealing with the argument that refusal to permit protest at Nabanna violated constitutional rights, the Bench stated: “If in front of ‘Nabanna’, the State Headquarter, the demonstrations were not permitted, it cannot be said that the right to protest is taken away.” It further recorded: “We are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that declining permission to lodge protest just in front of ‘Nabanna’ hits Article 19 of the Constitution.”

On reliance placed on a coordinate bench decision, the Court observed: “The order of Debranjan Banerjee (supra) does not reflect that in said case any such prohibitory order under Section 163 was prevailing.” It therefore held: “Thus, said order is distinguishable and cannot be pressed into service in the peculiar factual backdrop of this case.”

Also Read: Decline In Nearby Girls’ School Enrolment No Ground To Bar Girls’ Admission In Co-Educational Institution: Calcutta High Court

The Division Bench concluded that “the learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view which does not warrant interference in this intra court appeal. The appeal along with connected application are failed and hereby dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anish Kumar Mukherjee; Mr. Suryaneel Das; Mr. Chiranjit Pal; Ms. Megha Datta; Mr. Tamoghna Pramanick

For the Respondents: Mr. Kishore Datta, Advocate General; Mr. Swapan Banerjee; Ms. Sumita Shaw; Mr. Diptendu Narayan Banerjee; Mr. Soumen Chatterjee

Case Title: Sankar Ghosh v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: CHC-AS:127-DB
Case Number: MAT 67 of 2026 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sujoy Paul, Chief Justice; Justice Partha Sarathi Sen