CAA: Peaceful protestors can’t be called traitors Citizens need to protect their right: Bombay High Court
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court sets aside an order by the Additional District Magistrate against allowing protest in Maharashtra’s Beed, stating that those protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment)Act Cannot be called traitors, anti-nationals only because they want to oppose one law”.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a 45-year-old Beed resident, Iftekhar Shaik, challenging an order by a police inspector last month refusing permission for an agitation based on an order by the Additional District Magistrate.
The Court Said That “The submissions made show that there will be no question of
disobedience of provisions of CAA by such agitation. Thus, this Court is
expected to consider the right of such persons to start agitation in a peaceful
way. This Court wants to express that such persons cannot be called as traitors, anti-nationals only because they want to oppose one law. It will be act of protest and only against the Government for the reason of CAA”.
A division bench of Justices TV Nalavade and MG Sewlikar was hearing a petition and observed that
“India got freedom due to agitations which were non-violent and this path of non-violence is followed by the people of this country till this date. We are fortunate that most of the people of this country still believe in non-violence. In the present matter also the petitioners and companions want to agitate peacefully to show their protest. In British period our ancestors fought for freedom and also for the human rights and due to the philosophy behind the agitations, we created our constitution. It can be said that it is
unfortunate but the people are required to agitate against their own Government now but only on that ground the agitation cannot be suppressed”.
It further said that presently such agitations are going on everywhere and there was no whisper of agitations of other nature in this region.
It noted that “we must keep in mind that we are a democratic republic country and our
constitution has given us rule of law and not rule of majority. When such act is made, some people may be of a particular religion like Muslims may feel that it is against their interest and such act needs to be opposed”.
The bench said in its order.
Read the Order here.
