'Era Of Social Media': Gujarat High Court Asks State To Publicize Prohibitory Orders Under S.144 CrPC Online

The Gujarat High Court has directed the state authorities to widely publicize prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS (earlier Section 144 CrPC)–prohibiting assembly of four or more persons in a specific area to prevent urgent nuisance or on apprehending danger–on "social media" to generate public awareness about the same.

In doing so the court observed that mere publication of such orders in the official gazette is not enough as the public at large has no access; whereas today in the era of social media platforms it would incumbent on the authorities to publish such orders by using these modes.

The court was hearing a plea, wherein the petitioners were stated to be protesting against the implementation of The Citizenship Act at Ahmedabad in 2019. The Police Authorities had registered an offence against them for violation the notification issued under Section 144 CrPC. However, such orders issued from time to time, were not published or publicized sufficiently, and thus petitioners were unaware of it.

It was submitted that since 2016 till 2019, such Notifications were issued from time to time, and its issuance amount to curtailment of petitioners' fundamental right holding a protest against the elected Government in a peaceful manner. The petitioners sought quashing of the orders.

The plea further sought publication of Section 144CrPC orders by physically pasting it at prominent places, newspaper publication, radio/television broadcast and sharing it on concerned website and social media like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, in both Gujarati and English.

Justice MR Mengdey in his order said noted that the state authorities had argued that these orders were give wide publicity. However the court noted that the petitioners had demonstrated were not adequately publicized. It said:

"In the present era, mere publication of such Notifications or orders in the official gazette would not be sufficient. Moreover, the public at large has no access to such official gazette. In the era, where several modes of mass communication, including social media platforms are available, it is incumbent upon the Respondent authorities to publish such Notifications / Orders by using such modes. While quashing and setting aside the Notifications impugned in the present petition as well as the Notification dated 3.11.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City being violative of fundamental rights of the citizens, the Respondent Authorities are hereby directed that, in future, while exercising such powers available under BNSS or Section 37 of the G.P. Act, due care shall be taken for adhering to the procedural aspects and the inherent safeguards required for exercising such powers and the Notifications / Orders issued under these provisions shall be given wide publicity on social media to make the public at large aware about it".

In the present case the court noted that prior to resorting to exercise of powers under S.144 of the Code, it was incumbent upon the state authorities to take recourse to the other measures available to them under the law for maintenance of peace and tranquility; only when those measures were found to be insufficient the power could have been exercised.

It said, "There is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondent authorities had even taken recourse to the other measures and it was only upon their failure that the powers in question were exercised.The material available on record indicates that the Respondent authorities continued to issue Notifications under S.144 of the Code one after the other".

The court referred to the provision and said that the powers therein are to be exercised to overcome an emergent situation of any unrest and to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of a public tranquility.

It said:

"...if the Notifications impugned in the present petition are perused, they do not give any impression that the situation prevalent at the relevant time required the authorities concerned to take recourse to the power under S.144 of the Code...these powers being amenable to the judicial review and scrutiny, exercise of it, requires to appear reasonable and therefore, the authorities exercising these powers are also required to give their reasons for the same. The Notifications questioned in the present petition do not bear any reasons given by the authorities for issuing the same".

The court also referred to a 3-11-2025 notification issued by the office of Ahmedabad Police Commissioner under Section 37(1) of Gujarat Police Act stating that incidents were recorded in areas of certain police stations where accused gathered with weapons like sword, knife, dagger, iron pipe etc. with an intention of committing murder, attempt to murder or causing grievous injuries. Thus for maintaining peace and public safety the notification was issued.

The court however perused the notification and said that it did not indicate in "which areas of City of Ahmedabad, such incidents occurred and when such incidents had occurred". It noted the notification prevented the "residents of the entire Ahmedabad city from doing certain acts".

"It is the duty of the Police authorities to prevent the rogue elements from creating an atmosphere of unrest in the City, and for that purpose, an appropriate action is required to be taken...However, instead of doing so, by issuing the Notification in question, the office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City has curtailed the constitutional right of the citizens of India, who are residing in Ahmedabad or are visiting Ahmedabad of raising a legitimate protest...powers have been exercised by the respondent authorities in utter disregard of the safeguards provided for exercise of the powers in question. Therefore, the exercise of powers by the authorities appears to be arbitrary in the present case. Therefore, the notification in question including the notification of the Police Commissioner dated 3rd November 2025, are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and therefore, are liable to be quashed and set aside".

The plea was allowed.

Case title: NAVDEEP MATHUR & ORS. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 10872 of 2019

Click Here To Read/Download Order