CJP march to Parliament: What is the law invoked to impose curfew across New Delhi, how it is used
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
Prohibitory orders under (BNSS), which replaced Section 144 of the (CrPC), were imposed in New Delhi ahead of a planned protest march. An empirical study reveals that this 'emergency power' is routinely misused for micro-governance tasks like mandating CCTVs or tenant verification, with orders mechanically renewed beyond their statutory two-month limit, contrary to Supreme Court guidelines.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The application of (formerly Section 144 ) directly impacts fundamental rights under (freedom of speech) and (right to assemble peacefully). The statute empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. However, the study demonstrates a significant democratic deficit where an extraordinary power meant for imminent threats (riots, public order disturbances) is used for routine administration. This contradicts the principle of proportionality, an essential test for restricting fundamental rights. For UPSC, questions can focus on the balance between state power for maintaining public order and the protection of civil liberties, analyzing how the routine use of prohibitory orders undermines the constitutional framework.
Governance
The study highlights a breakdown in the rule of law and administrative accountability. The routine issuance and mechanical renewal of orders under for issues like tenant verification or CCTV installation—often outlasting the statutory two-month limit—illustrate bureaucratic inertia and the circumvention of proper legislative processes. By relying on a penal provision for civil governance, the police effectively bypass the need to frame specific regulations or bylaws. This practice, described as "micro-level governance," raises concerns about the arbitrary exercise of executive power. Candidates should analyze this in the context of administrative reforms, emphasizing the need for statutory clarity and judicial oversight to prevent the normalization of emergency powers for everyday policing.
Legal/Judicial
The judiciary has consistently attempted to circumscribe the use of this power. In (1961), the affirmed that the power is not "unlimited or untrammelled" and must be tied to specific, immediate threats. Furthermore, in (2018), the Court ruled against blanket bans on protests, advocating for regulated permission mechanisms instead. The Delhi High Court in Bhanwar Singh specifically ruled that such orders cannot be repeatedly extended. Despite these precedents, the continuous re-issuance of orders shows a gap between judicial pronouncements and executive enforcement. This highlights the concept of executive overreach and the limitations of judicial review when dealing with deeply entrenched administrative practices. The conflict between de jure (legal) restrictions and de facto (practical) implementation is a key area for Mains evaluation.