No Absolute Right To Protest At Any Chosen Place: Calcutta High Court Refuses Permission For Dharna In Front Of State Secretariat 'Nabanna'
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by an MLA challenging the refusal of police permission to hold a sit-in demonstration in front of Nabanna, the headquarters of the West Bengal Government. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen upheld the order of the Single Judge permitting the protest to be held at an...
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by an MLA challenging the refusal of police permission to hold a sit-in demonstration in front of Nabanna, the headquarters of the West Bengal Government.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen upheld the order of the Single Judge permitting the protest to be held at an alternative location, holding that the right to protest is subject to reasonable restrictions regarding time and place.
The appellant had sought permission to organise a peaceful sit-in demonstration by 50 MLAs in front of Nabanna on 16 January 2026. The police authorities rejected the request citing law and order concerns, which led to the filing of a writ petition. The Single Judge disposed of the petition by permitting the demonstration at Mandirtala Bus Stand for a limited duration and subject to conditions, instead of the desired venue.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant contended that the right to protest is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution and relied heavily on Supreme Court judgments including Himmat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ramlila Maidan Incident (In Re) and Shaheen Bagh (In Re). It was argued that prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC (now Section 163 BNSS) cannot be indefinite and that similarly placed political protests had earlier been permitted near Nabanna.
Opposing the appeal, the State submitted that there is no absolute right to protest at any particular place or time and that reasonable restrictions are permissible in the interest of public order. The Advocate General relied on Constitution Bench judgments such as Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, Railway Board v. Niranjan Singh, and Ramlila Maidan, contending that executive authorities are empowered to regulate assemblies, including by restricting venues.
The Division Bench noted that the prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the BNSS for the Howrah metropolitan area was not challenged by the appellant. In the absence of such a challenge, the Court held that it could not examine the legality or propriety of the prohibitory order. The Bench also observed that remedies are available under law to challenge such orders, as recognised by the Supreme Court in Babulal Parate.
Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that the right to assemble does not include the right to assemble at any and every place of choice. It observed that reasonable restrictions on protests, particularly in sensitive locations like the seat of government, do not amount to an infringement of Article 19 rights.
Distinguishing earlier orders relied upon by the appellant, including Debranjan Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, the Court held that those cases did not involve an existing prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS and were therefore factually inapplicable.
Holding that the Single Judge had taken a plausible and legally sustainable view, the Division Bench declined to interfere and dismissed the appeal along with the connected application.
Case: Sankar Ghosh v The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: MAT 67 of 2026