‘No right violated’: HC bins BJP’s plea for ‘sit-in’ in front of Nabanna
Times of India | 30 January 2026
Kolkata: A right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution is subject to limitations, it does not mean that "a demonstration can take place at whatever place the demonstrators please", the Calcutta high court said on Thursday. The order came as the HC rejected a plea by Bengal BJP challenging a single judge order disallowing them from a sit-in demonstration in front of Nabanna to protest against the CM's alleged obstruction to an ED search on I-PAC.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen dismissed BJP's arguments that if they were not allowed to hold a demonstration in front of Nabanna, their right to protest was taken away.
"The right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution is not an absolute right but can be subject to limitations…," the bench said, citing apex court judgments.
A single bench had permitted the demonstration at a different place, Mandirtala bus stand, from 10am to 4pm, subject to certain conditions. Sankar Ghosh, Bengal BJP's chief whip, challenged the order.
Senior counsel Billwadal Bhattacharyya, appearing for Ghosh, said that the right to protest was a fundamental right in a constitutional democracy. He also contended that prohibitory orders under Section 144 CrPC (Section 163 of BNSS) cannot be issued for an unlimited period, and argued that the petitioner had a valuable right to sit on a "dharna" in front of "Nabanna".
The advocate general said it was a misconceived notion that the petitioner had any absolute fundamental right under Article 19 to hold a "dharna" at any place or at any time. The power conferred by Section 144 CrPC is exercisable not only where danger exists at present but also when there is an apprehension of danger, he said.
The HC said: "The common string flowing from the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court show that the State is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions on a demonstration. If, in front of Nabanna, the state headquarter, the demonstrations were not permitted, it cannot be said that the right to protest is taken away. We are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner that declining permission to lodge a protest just in front of Nabanna hits Article 19 of the Constitution."