The Gujarat High Court has ruled that prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — and formerly under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — must be broadly publicised so that they are effectively communicated to the public, rather than being restricted solely to official-gazette notifications. The Court recognised that ordinary citizens rarely access the gazette, and in the modern era of digital communication, such limited publication fails to provide adequate notice of restrictions on public gatherings.
The decision arose from petitions by individuals who had taken part in protests and were later charged with violating a prohibitory order. They argued that they had no knowledge of any valid order restricting public assembly because the notifications were never disseminated in a manner accessible to the general public. The Court accepted this argument, concluding that authorities had failed to meaningfully inform citizens about the restrictions before enforcing them.
As a result, the High Court quashed the impugned orders and acquitted the protesters. It held that issuing such orders without proper notice and without meeting the statutory requirements for emergency restrictions infringed upon basic constitutional freedoms. The Court emphasised that prohibitory orders are extraordinary powers reserved for emergent threats to public order, safety, or peace — not for routine suppression of assembly or protest.
The Court also criticised the vague and sweeping nature of the orders under challenge. Many such orders lacked specific details about the area of effect, the period for which the order was valid, or the concrete danger or incident prompting the restriction. Orders that impose blanket bans across entire cities without justification or clarity were deemed arbitrary and unjustified.
Going forward, the Court directed that any future prohibitory order under BNSS or equivalent provisions must be accompanied by clear reasoning, specifying the geographical area, time frame, and the nature of the threat necessitating the order. It insisted that such orders be disseminated widely through accessible channels such as social media, official websites, and other mass-communication means so that people likely to be affected are made aware. The Court stressed that when the state exercises extraordinary powers curtailing fundamental rights — such as the right to assembly and protest — it must do so transparently, with accountability and effective public notice.
This judgment establishes a new standard for communication of prohibitory orders. It reinforces that restrictions on fundamental freedoms cannot be imposed clandestinely or without informing those affected, and that procedural fairness, clarity, and accessibility are essential prerequisites when state authorities exercise extraordinary powers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.