NEED AND PURPOSE OF DISPERSAL

In a country like India, where there are numerous religious, ethnic, language, and
caste divisions, large-scale rallies, riots, and acts of widespread civil disturbance
are common. Protesters may retaliate violently against police and security forces,
property, or other people in such situations. As a result, it is critical to discuss and
ponder on how to cope with violent civic protests. These clauses of the CrPC allow
Executive Magistrates and police personnel the authority to disperse unlawful
meetings that may disturb or have the potential to undermine society’s public order
and peace. It could potentially cause damage to public property and harm to the
general population. As a result, the Constitution has given Executive magistrates,
as well as other police authorities and the armed forces, the authority to disperse
such gatherings.
The provision for dispersal of an unlawful assembly is considered vital because it
is a crime under section 141 of the IPC, and those who are a part of it are penalised
under sections 143,144,145, and 149 of the IPC.
Even if only one individual commits an offence at such an assembly, everyone
who is a part of it will be held accountable. As a result, procedures for dispersal of
such assemblies have been introduced under the CRPC in order to prevent crimes.
Below the cases are the exponent of this topic
Babulal Parate vs state of Maharashtra
the powers under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code appear to be broad,
they can only be used in extreme circumstances, such as an emergency. It can be
used to prevent, hinder, annoy, or injure anyone who is lawfully engaged, as well
as harm to human being, health and safety, and public property or the disruption of
public peace or riot. Because these circumstances influence how this power is
used, it would be incorrect to think of it as endless or excessive.
Because an executive magistrate must rule on whether or not an exercise of these
powers should be made in a given case, it is presumed that the magistrate in
question will do so in a fair and impartial manner. So, this case proven that this
section can’t struck as given power be misuse or not.
Despite the fact that section 144 gives the government a lot of power, how it uses
that power is up for debate, so it can't be said that it violates or limits some
fundamental rights.
Re Ramlila Maidan vs union of India

The Apex Court found that the police's use of force under section 144 was
unjustified in this case because the police failed to provide sufficient grounds for
their use of force. The Court also voiced its displeasure with the use of excessive
force on the sleeping crowd at Ramlila Maidan. The court ruled that if the police
wished to disperse the throng, they should have waited until a reasonable period
had passed.
Moti Das vs State of Bihar
The Hon'ble Court found that the gathering, which had been lawful before, turned
unlawful when one of the members, together with others, assaulted the victim and
his companions, and all of the assembly members began following the victim as he
ran to save his life.
"An assembly that is lawful in its genesis may become unlawful by the future
activities of its members," the Hon'ble court said, referring to the 18th edition of
Rantalal's Law of Crimes at p. 333. It might become illegal at any time and without
warning among its members. However, an illegal act committed by one or two
members without the consent of the others does not alter the character of the
assembly."
Dharam Pal Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh
The Supreme Court ruled in this case that if only five people have been named and
charged with forming an unlawful assembly, and one or more of them have been
acquitted, the other people who have been charged with forming an unlawful
assembly cannot be convicted since they are less than five. If it is shown that other
people were there but were unable to be recognized and named, the other accused
will be found guilty of illegal assembly.
Karam Singh vs Hardyal Singh
The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court concluded in this case that an
Executive Magistrate must meet three pre-requisites before ordering the use of
force to disperse a throng.
To begin, there must be an unlawful gathering of five or more people with the
intent of committing violence or causing a disruption of public calmness.
A second step is for an Executive Magistrate only to issue a dispersion order.
Third, despite such commands, if individuals do not flee.

Role of Section 144 CPC in current events

COVID 19
As the number of cases of COVID-19 has increased in India, some state
governments have enacted this clause in response. This highly transmissible virus
has sparked outrage throughout the world, including in India.

The rising number of instances of Coronavirus (COVID-19) makes it necessary for

Magistrates to have such powers in order to ensure the protection of the general
public, which is necessary for their survival. However, Section 144 of the CRPC
has been implemented on a case-by-case basis, most recently to address the
problem of Coronavirus (COVID-19), also known as the Chinese virus. As a result,
we may infer that enforcing section 144 of the CRPC is fully within its legal
authority and can be used effectively to halt and combat the pandemic. In order to
stop the spread of the fatal illness, the Maharashtra government implemented
Section 144 in all of the state's cities starting March 22, 2020. In Mumbai, police
have filed 23,126 charges against people who disobeyed movement restriction
orders issued under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There have been
1410 arrests and 7570 automobiles taken from motorists who defied the nationwide
lockdown by roaming about for no apparent purpose.
CAA-NRC
Following protests against the most contentious CAA and NRC, section 144 of the
CRPC was enacted in several cities or areas of the country. The authorities in
Bangalore had enforced Section 144 as a precautionary measure after an incident.
Police detained noted historian Ramachandra Guha as he maintained his right to
peaceful protest and sought to address the media. He contended that this was an
abuse of Section 144 since it violated his right to free expression and peaceful
assembly.
MISUSE OF SEC 144 CrPC
The right to peaceful assembly is protected as a basic human right in a number of
international and regional human rights agreements. Orders under section 144 are
used to restrict protests, block the Internet, and even suspend cable television
services in systems and nations where the concept of coercive restrictions is
regarded unsophisticated or vague. The police can no longer use violence to
comply with a section 144 order. Police may use force to disperse "Unlawful
Assembly" depending on the circumstances. Other cases should follow the same
procedure, with a criminal punishment under the IPC. There is no longer a scarcity
of "ministers and executors," and the legal elite has no motivation to relinquish its
power. Following public outcry over the alleged gang-rape and death of a 19-year-
old girl in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh police filed a FIR (under section 153A) against
200 persons, including Panchayats. The Hathras district administration has
implemented section 144 in the region, prohibiting outsiders from visiting the
Bulgari hamlet, where the Dalit girl was gang-raped and murdered. According to
reports, 200 persons were prosecuted with breaking the Epidemic Act and Section
144, which Hathras authorities enacted. According to the report, Panchayat Hayat
was held on the former BJP MLA's directives.
We realized we had to break the structural chains that had enslaved Indian farmers.
Farmers from Punjab have congregated on the Haryana-Punjab border to march
towards Delhi in protest of the Centre's three new farm legislation, as part of the
anti-farm invoice rallies across India. Hundreds of farmers from Punjab and
Haryana have begun moving closer to the national capital in support of his or her
'Delhi Chalo' agitation, which has now become more intense. The Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP)-led Haryana government has shuttered all entry points along the
Punjab border and invoked phase 144 across the state, which forbids demonstrators
from meeting. The Delhi Police has also cautioned demonstrators that if they
ignore the mandate, they will face legal punishment.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, it may be inferred that courts face a difficult challenge in
navigating the fine line between upholding the right to freedom of assembly and
maintaining communal peace and tranquilly. To avoid any impending harm to the
public or public property, an executive magistrate is given dispersion and
prevention of illegal assembly powers. However, in a democratic democracy like
India, these powers can be abused, as the Ramlila Maidan case demonstrates.
Incidents can happen, and the fundamental right to gather is occasionally violated.
The Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, on the other hand,
have clauses that set appropriate restrictions on the authority granted to the
Executive Magistrates for dispersing unlawful assemblies. The CrPC establishes a
number of measures for the dispersion of unlawful gatherings that can be used by
an executive magistrate.