Even though a case is in court, citizens have the right to protest: High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

A Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and BS Bhanumathi ruled that filing a complaint with the Constitutional Court for redress of complaints does not preclude a person from demonstrating.

“We say so because, when the Court examines the disagreement, it will do so exclusively via a legal lens, based on established adjudication limits; whereas, the goal of protest is to bring the government’s attention to an issue,” the High Court declared.

In the current case, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking to have a government announcement providing new pay scales declared unconstitutional and arbitrary, as well as in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization Act 2014 and the Constitution of India.

When the Court had already been summoned, by way of this writ petition, albeit by a government employee in his individual capacity, the Advocate General contended that it was not right for the employees to call for, or go on strike, which may bring the State’s administrative machinery to a standstill.

According to him, while Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution provides all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, this right is not absolute.

The Court ordered that the case be assigned to a proper bench pursuant to the Court’s roster, but made it plain that individuals will not be barred from exercising their right to protest on an issue that is already before the Court for adjudication.

In October of last year, a Division Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar raised the question of whether people protesting against the Central government’s farm regulations can claim the right to demonstrate after filing a legal challenge to the legislation.

However, another bench, comprised of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh, had made it plain that it was not opposed to farmers’ protests on the legislation, which was already seeking adjudication, but that they should not be done by blocking roadways and creating public annoyance.

Case: KV Krishnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh.