SECTION 144 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 DISHA GUPTA BASICS OF LAW Thu, Dec 26, 2019, at ,11:27 AM Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was in the year 1973. This law empowers the magistrate of any state or union territory in India to pass an order prohibiting the gathering of four or more people in a specified area. The various provisions of Section 144 make it possible to book all the members of such gathering termed as ‘unlawful assembly’ under the charges of having engaged in rioting. The restriction could be imposed in a specific locality or in the entire town. The defining aspect of imposing such a restriction is an assessment of the situation by the district administration that it has the potential to cause unrest or danger to peace and tranquillity in such an area due to certain disputes. Prevention of a crime or riot is the duty of the administration. The power conferred under Section 144 is absolute in terms of maintaining law and order. Once Section 144 of the CrPC is imposed in any area, all civilians are barred from carrying of weapons of any kind including lathis, sharp-edged metallic objects or firearms in public places. Police or other security personnel are the only ones allowed to carry weapons in areas placed under Section 144. Violation of Section 144 is liable for punishment for up to three years in jail. NEED OF SECTION 144 Section 144 is imposed in a given region in emergency situations or cases of nuisance or perceived danger of some event that has the potential to create a troubling situation or damage to human lives or property. In general, we can say Section 144 prohibits public gathering. In the past, Section 144 came to use when there was a need to implement certain restrictions in order to prevent the eruption of some protests or riots that can give way to unrest. The executive magistrate of the given jurisdiction has been conferred the power to issue orders under Section 144 when there is an impending emergency situation. APPLICATIONS OF SECTION 144 Section 144 also places restrictions on handling or transporting any kind of weapon in the given jurisdiction where Section 144 has been imposed. In case of any violation in this regard, people doing it in any form can be detained. Such acts can invite punishment of three years. As per the order issued under this section, there cannot be any movement of the public. All educational institutions in the given area will have to remain closed. Holding any public meeting or conducting rallies in the area are banned during the period when Section 144 is in force. In the areas where Section 144 is in force, it is deemed a punishable offense to obstruct law enforcement agencies from disbanding an unlawful assembly. In case of any arising need, Section 144 also empowers the authorities to stop internet access in the region. The ultimate purpose of Section 144 is to maintain peace and order in the areas where trouble could erupt to disrupt the regular life. 144 CrPC prohibits the conducting of some events which are otherwise allowed during regular times. DURATION OF SECTION 144 As a matter of rule, for the implementation of Section 144 in a given jurisdiction, it is imposed for two months but it can be withdrawn any moment the administration finds the situation has attained normalcy. The government may extend the duration of the restriction imposed under Section 144 beyond two months but not exceeding six months in one stretch. HOW IS SECTION 144 DIFFERENT FROM CURFEW? Curfew and Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are the provisions to prevent unlawful assemblies. Restriction under Section 144 is different from the curfew. In the areas where curfew is imposed, all public activity is barred. Civilian traffic is also stopped. Curfew warrants much graver situation posing a bigger danger of rioting and violence. Section 144 of CrPC generally prohibits public gathering. And on the other hand, curfew orders people to stay indoors for a specific time. Therefore, the officials can impose a curfew for a certain time. Time is very important in this. However, the authorities can extend the period of curfew if required. Most importantly, if you want to go out of your house during the curfew, you need prior approval from the local police. Also, we can say that Section 144 of CrPC bars mob gatherings but it does not control it. A curfew is a larger action taken to control the grave situation. You need permission to move out in a curfew. RESTRICTIONS DURING CURFEW No person can do hunger-strike, without the permission of any competent authority. It is not imposed on examinees, marriage ceremonies, cremation, and religious festivals. No person can walk with any sort of tool, or any type of fatal weapon, firearms, etc. Even to carry licensed weapons are not allowed at the office. It also prevents playing or selling firecrackers. Even speech or advertisement that hurts the feelings of any community-culture is also prohibited. There is a restriction on the use of loudspeakers, DJs without prior permission. Five or more people cannot be assembled at a distance of two hundred yards from the examination center. Even in marriages to carry any type of arms and ammunition are banned. BAN ON INTERNET AND SECTION 144 The use of Section 144 CrPC to shut down the internet has been held to be legal by the Gujrat High Court in the case of Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. The State of Gujrat. The petitioner had challenged the government shutting down the internet in the parts of Gujrat. He argued that the government should not have blocked the internet as a whole for the state and the government should have instead invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act that allowed for the government to block specific sites ‘in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India’. The court rejected both the arguments and held that the government had not completely blocked the internet, as the public still had access to broadband services and wi-fi. The court also held that while section 69A of the IT Act was meant to block certain websites, but under section 144 of CrPC, the government could issue directions to persons who are responsible for extending internet access. The court held that in case of a law and order situation, it is up to the government to decide how best to bring the situation under control, and if it decides to block the mobile broadband access in such a situation, then the court should not interfere with this.