NMIMS – KIRIT P.

MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW

SUBJECT:
Law of Crimes II : CrPC

A PAPER ON:
Analysis of Sec 144 of CrPC during Covid-19

SUBMITTED TO:
Prof. Anjali Sharma

SUBMITTED BY: DEVYANI

BA LLB – ‘A’
Roll No. - A041
ABSTRACT
When it is necessary to prevent obstruction, irritation, or harm to any person who is legitimately
engaged immediately or to provide for a prompt remedy, Section 144 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is enforced. When human life, health, or safety are in danger, it may be implemented. It is
crucial in every situation involving a riot or an altercation. Given that its effects are so terrible, it is
hardly an exaggeration to claim that Section 144 is one of the most well known legal provisions
among the nation's working class. The global pandemic had created a sceptical atmosphere, The
spread of false information via social media has heightened the public's sense of unease and
confusion during the hostile time. False information frequently acts as a spark in a fire that disturbs
the peace and tranquilly of the population. Worldwide COVID-19 cases were increasing, and India
was not an exception. On March 24, 2020, India reported 492 more COVID-19 cases and 9 more
fatalities. As a result, Section 144 of the CrPC was enforced in several districts across various states,
including Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, etc., to address the matter. Hence in
this paper an in depth analysis of sec 144 is done with respect to the recent pandemic.

Key Words

1. Section 144
2. Code of Criminal Procedure
3. COVID – 19
4. Restrictions

INTRODUCTION
In the midst of the festivities in December 2019, when anti-CAA protests were already taking place
widely and visibly, an invisible calamity was waiting around every corner in India. It didn't take long
for that invisible virus, later known as "COVID-19," or as President Trump referred to it, the "China
Virus" (due to its origin in Wuhan, a city in the Chinese province of Hubei), to raise considerable
alarm not only in India but also around the world. And by the middle of 2020, the sickness had
spread widely throughout our cherished motherland, INDIA, due to its contagious nature.
Furthermore, India's economy is still in danger of being devastated by this extremely contagious,
worldwide illness even in 2021. Throughout the pandemic, false information has been disseminated
at an unprecedented rate. To calm public panic, governments have been compelled to take action to
stop this spread. Mumbai Police implemented one such action by issuing a prohibitory order in
accordance with Section 144 of India's Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In view of its impact on
the freedom of speech and expression, this article seeks to assess the imposition of such an order.

Heavy screening, suspension of visas, mandatory quarantining of incoming domestic and

international travellers, and the most difficult and important step was the announcement of lockdown
by whereby all forms of social, political, religious, educational, cultural, entertainment, sports, and
other non-essential activities would be suspended until the situation was resolved. As a result,
everything was closed, with the exception of the absolutely necessary services like hospitals and
pharmacies. This included all schools, colleges, libraries, coaching centres, gymnasiums, malls,
clubs, hotels, restaurants, community halls, temples, mosques, parks, etc. Following this, there were
additional linear unlocks in which people were gradually given relaxations. In addition to Lockdown,
the government implemented Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the majority of the
COVID-affected states of India was an effort to lessen the effects of COVID-19. To normalise the
current abnormal situations in a region, Section 144 is a very good legal provision to enact and hence
was done.

Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure states that –

Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger.

(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub- divisional Magistrate or any
other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy
is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and
served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or
to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management,
if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent,
obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life,
health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray.

(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances
do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is
directed, be passed ex parte.

(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing
in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular
place or area.

(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making
thereof: Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing
danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by
notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for
such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the
Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification.

(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved,
rescind or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to
him or by his predecessor- in- office.

(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person
aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub- section (4).

(7) Where an application under sub- section (5) or sub- section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or
the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of
appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order;
and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly
or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing. Disputes as to immovable
property1

An Executive Magistrate has broad authority under the Criminal Process Law (hereinafter the Code)
to handle urgent situations. One of these clauses relates with the Magistrates' authority to place

1
(Mahawar, 2022)
limitations on people's personal freedoms, whether in a particular neighbourhood or in the town
itself, when certain disagreements have the potential to spark disturbance or pose a threat to the peace
and tranquillity in that region. In urgent situations of annoyance or suspected danger, Section 144
grants the authority to immediately issue an absolute order. Where they believe there is sufficient
cause to act under the provision and an urgent stop or prompt remedy is needed, specific classes of
magistrates may issue such orders.

WHAT IS SECTION 144?

The most practical and frequently used section of the Code of Criminal Procedure is Section 144. Under
this specific section, empowered magistrates are granted significant authority primarily to impose
directions in urgent situations involving annoyance or suspected risk. Here, the terms "nuisance" or
"apprehended risk" refer to events that either produce or have the potential to produce social disturbance
or present a threat to the public's health, safety, or peace. According to this provision, authorities have the
authority to prohibit any gathering of five or more people in a specified region or jurisdiction if it is
urgent to impose the specific section. Furthermore, the case's extreme urgency necessitates that the
procedures and prerequisites typically required for the issuance of an injunction be waived. Only certain
classes of Magistrates have the authority to issue an order under this section where they believe there is
adequate justification for proceedings under the provision and that immediate preventive or prompt
remedy is desirable. An order issued under this Section may also be addressed at a specific person, people
who live in a specific location, or the general public when they are frequenting or visiting a specific
location.

In Gulam Abbas v. State of U.P. & Ors, it was decided that an order issued under Section 144 is
essentially an executive order that is passed in the course of an executive function, where no dispute
regarding any rights between rival parties is adjudicated but only an order-preserving peace is made. As
such, it will be subject to writ jurisdiction under either Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution if it
violates or infringes on any fundamental right.

Who can proclaim under Section 144?

1. District Magistrate
2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate
3. Any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government on this behalf.

According to the demands of the circumstance, the order issued by such Magistrates may also impose
limits on gathering in unauthorised groups, handling or carrying any type of weapon or arm, access to
internet services, etc. Any magistrate may revoke or change any order issued under this section, either on
his own initiative or in response to a request from a party who feels wronged, or by himself, by a
magistrate beneath him in the chain of command, or by his predecessor in office. Similar to this, the State
Government may, on its own initiative or at the request of any party who feels wronged, revoke or modify
any order it has made regarding the extension of the validity or length of Section 144 under the proviso to
subsection (4) of the same section.
GROUNDS FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 144
The grounds for making the order are that, in the opinion of the Magistrate, such direction is either likely
to prevent or tends to prevent the following –

1. Obstruction
In order to prevent disobedience to any passed orders, such as public orders, court orders, government
orders, etc., or to prevent any activity that is impeding or interfering with law and order in any situation,
the Magistrate must make sure that passing such an order under Section 144 is genuinely necessary. At
Ayodhya, for instance, restrictions under Section 144 were put in place in 2019 following a contentious
Supreme Court hearing on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Mosque land dispute.

2. Annoyance
Under this section, the Magistrate may issue an order to prevent any circumstance or particular conduct
that fosters or tends to foster a climate of hatred or violence among society's citizens and has the potential
to upset law, order, and peace. Also, the section addresses both physical and psychological irritants.

3. Injuries to any legally employed person

The injury must be caused or inflicted upon the persons who are engaged in the performance of their
assigned duties while employed lawfully for Section 144 to be imposed on this basis. And regardless of
whether the injury sustained is little or severe, using violence against a person who is legitimately
employed that upsets the balance of things in terms of law and order is required in this scenario.

4. Danger to human life, health, or safety

The magistrate must be sure that there is a serious need to apply the specific section in order to promptly
stop the high danger of harm to the public's health or safety. The urgency must be such that, if it is not
addressed right away, it will soon cause a major catastrophe. Example: The recent COVID-19 Epidemic
led to the imposition of Section 144.

5. Disturbance of the peace tranquillity

A circumstance where any form of activity or offence disturbs the public order and quiet in society is
referred to as a disturbance of public serenity. In order to secure public safety by upholding public peace
and tranquilly, the magistrate must make sure that the specific activity or offence is against the interests of
society as a whole. Example: Section 144 implementation during anti-CAA demonstrations in December
2019.

6. Riot
Civil unrest is brought on by the circumstance, which frequently exhibits abrupt and offensive conduct.
The Magistrate must make sure that applying Section 144 will stop members of an unlawful assembly
from using violence or force. As an illustration Section 144 was implemented in UP, Jaipur, and a few
locations in New Delhi and Mumbai on November 13, 2019, in advance of the Supreme Court's Ayodhya
ruling, to quell any potential unrest.

7. Affray
"Affray" denotes a more physical than merely verbal threat of violence. In order to restore peace among
the citizens of the society, the Magistrate must ensure that Section 144 must be applied in order to stop the
acts that are inciting fear or dread among the public.

In the case of Manzur Hasan & Ors. v/s Muhammad Zaman & Ors., the concept that must be considered
prior to the use of Section 144 has been described. The ability must be used in urgent circumstances in
order to preserve public tranquilly.
Private rights may be temporarily set aside in situations when the public interest must take precedence
over them due to the necessity of protecting the public interest. Under Section 144, issues of a civil nature
or questions of title to properties are not subject to adjudication in a procedure.
The community as a whole should be taken into account rather than a restriction that would only effect a
small portion of the community. The Shaik Piru Bux v. Kalandi Pati case further endorsed these tenets.

An order made in accordance with Section 144 cannot be in effect for longer than two months after the
date it was made. The two-month period, however, may be increased at the state government's discretion
up to a maximum of six months after the day on which the initial order expires.

ROLE OF SECTION 144 AMID THE COVID- 19 BREAK

Section 144 of the CrPC came to light as a preventive measure in the context of public health and safety
when the COVID-19 pandemic spread throughout the entirety of India since it had significantly reduced
the communicability of COVID-19 cautiously.

In order to stop the spread of the coronavirus disease, Section 144 was implemented in a number of cities
across several states, and as a result, it has progressively gained a lot of public attention. Several states,
including Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu,
etc., had the specific clause imposed.

Examples- Rajasthan: In 11 districts, including Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Bikaner, Udaipur, etc., the State
Government issued prohibitory orders in accordance with Section 144. The decision was made in the
interest of the people, according to Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot. Goa - In order to prevent COVID-19
instances, etc., the Goa government implemented Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prior to
the festivals of Holi, Shab-e-Barat, Easter, and Eid.

As is common knowledge, COVID-19 has shown to be a very lethal and quickly spreading virus, making
it imperative to restrict or otherwise regulate public movement. In this regard, Section 144 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is unquestionably a terrific provision because it gives empowered Magistrates a
significant deal of authority to forbid public meetings. Basically, Section 144 is implemented in a certain
territory or area during emergencies, especially where there is a nuisance or a perceived risk of an
occurrence that could lead to a problematic situation or cause harmful damage to human life or property.
Sadly, COVID-19 falls into the same category.

In order to counter COVID-19, the following restrictions were added to Section 144 and made effective in
various Indian states.

1. Restricted meetings of any kind anywhere, without the use of masks on people's faces, and prohibited
the presence or movement of one or more people. Additionally, an order demands that social distance
standards (a minimum of 6 feet) be adhered to at all times.
2. Forbade the use of amenities including swimming pools, gyms, and party or gathering rooms in
apartment buildings and housing developments.

3. Prohibition of any political rallies, unlicensed marches, protests, mass prayers, etc.

4. No social or religious gatherings are allowed. But, subject to certain restrictions, each state's
government has set a specific cap on how many people can show up for a funeral or wedding reception.

5. All types of essential goods, services, businesses, stores, such as grocers, dairy, fruit and vegetable
stores, etc., must operate within a certain time frame while taking the necessary precautions to prevent the
spread of coronavirus, such as adhering to sanitization procedures and social distancing standards, etc.

6. In the four-wheelers, a driver and a maximum of four passengers may be seated at once.

7. While taking the necessary measures, such as upholding social distance rules and using a suitable mask
to hide the face, a restricted number of individuals (likely about 50% of the entire space) are to be allowed
to enter movie theatres, restaurants, etc.

8. The order provides a warning that violators will be subject to punishment (like proper social distancing
and covering of face through masks, etc.

ARE SECTION 144, LOCKDOWN, AND CURFEW THE SAME

No, is the response. They cannot be handled similarly. The following are the primary criteria on which
they can be distinguished:-

SPHERE

SECTION 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 grants the authority to impose directives in
urgent situations involving annoyance or apprehension of harm.

'Lockdown' is not a recognised legal word. Government representatives and others use the phrase to
describe a situation when the freedom of movement of people, products, and services, etc. is restricted in
accordance with the necessity or requirement of the circumstance. Nonetheless, some necessities are
exempt from the rules. The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897, particularly in the recent pandemic era,
provides the clearest interpretation of the specific phrase. An order made in accordance with Section 144
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may also include the phrase "CURFEW". In more serious
circumstances, curfew orders are given for a set amount of time.

ISSUING AUTHORITY

A District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or an Executive Magistrate with specific authority may
enforce "Section 144". According to the situation/circumstances, "Lockdown" may be enforced by order
of the Central Government, the State Government, or any person/officer authorised by them or under any
applicable Act or legislation, in all or some portions of India. While dealing with a crisis or pandemic, the
Disaster Management Act of 2005 and the Epidemic Diseases Act of 1897 are very important. A
"Curfew" may be enforced by a law enforcement organisation, such as the District Magistrate, etc. While
the police commissioner and collector are in charge, a curfew is imposed.

GROUNDS OF PURPOSE
In order to prevent situations of nuisance or perceived risk that has the potential to harm human life or
property or to maintain peace and order in those regions where the current unrest can disrupt daily life,
"Section 144" restricts the assembly of five or more people and forbids public meetings.

"Lockdown" - The restriction of all non-essential activities, goods, and services as well as the restriction
of public movement on various forms of public transportation, such as buses, trains, planes, etc., in order
to reduce the risk to the public's health and safety and to maintain societal peace.

"Curfew" - To order individuals to remain indoors (totally off the roads) for a set amount of time in order
to avoid endangering human life, health, or safety, as well as to avoid upsetting the peace in the
community, etc. During curfew, essential services are also suspended.

PUNISHMENT PROVISION

The mechanism under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code can be used to enforce "Section 144,"
meaning that if such disobedience by any person/people causes obstruction, annoyance, or harm to people
who are lawfully employed, that person/people would be punished with imprisonment that could last up to
one month or with fines that could last up to 200 rupees, or with both. And if such disobedience by any
person (or persons) puts human life, health, or safety in danger, or starts or tends to start a riot or
altercation, that person (or persons) will be punished with a term of imprisonment that may not exceed six
months, a fine that may not exceed one thousand rupees, or a combination of the two.

The mechanism under Section 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which makes disobedience to
a public servant's orders punishable by either imprisonment or a fine, or both imprisonment and a fine, as
well as Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that if any person commits a negligent act that
is likely to spread an infection of a disease that is dangerous to life, then such person/persons would be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.And if someone is
asked to quarantine vessels or to regulate sexual activity between locations where an infectious disease is
prevalent and they disobey the order, they could be penalised under Section 271 of the Indian Criminal
Code with up to six months in prison, a fine, or both.

Curfews can be imposed using the procedure outlined in Section 188 of the Indian Criminal Code, which
calls for the same punishment to be meted out for breaking orders issued under Section 144.

CONCLUSION
At times of emergency, or to put it another way, in instances of annoyance or suspected danger, Section
144 has unquestionably shown to be an excellent legal measure. The most remarkable aspect of this
section is how quickly appropriate limits can be placed on specific activities or events, even before they
take place, which is likely to avert some undesirable occurrences. Orders issued under this section are
even anticipatory in character. So, it is clear that this clause enters into force as a way to safeguard public
health and safety by preserving peace and tranquilly in a location. The government is working hard to
flatten the COVID-19 pandemic curve by implementing Section 144 and other preventive measures, but
the results have not been very promising. This is because enacting orders alone is insufficient if they are
not carried out in a well-thought-out manner.
In limiting the scope of power under Section 144 of the CrPC, the Rule of Law notion must be the
torchbearer. The rule of law principle seeks to strike a balance between the opposing notions of individual
liberty and public order, and the two notions can only be harmonised by adhering to the principle of the
rule of law, according to the illustrious ruling in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, written by the
honourable justice H.R. Khanna in 1977. The rules outlined by the constitution must be followed by
government officials. The authority of the government over its citizens, as well as the power of a person
over another citizen, is often limited by law. Citizens have certain freedoms, and they should not be
abused or mistreated in any way.

REFERENCES

1. S.M. et al. (2021) Analysis of section 144 of the code of criminal procedure amid the covid-

19 outbreak, iPleaders. Available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/analysis-section-144-code-

criminal-procedure-amid-covid-19-outbreak/ (Accessed: March 6, 2023).

2. India, legal S. (no date) Analysis of Section 144 of CrPC, Analysis of section 144 of CRPC.

Available at: https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1841/Analysis-of-Section-144-of-

CrPC.html (Accessed: March 6, 2023)

3. Sharma, K. and Bose, M. (no date) Constitutional legality of the limits of sanctions and extent

of Liberty in the view of coronavirus pandemic in India, Journal of Constitutional Law and

Jurisprudence, and significance. Available at:

https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/Jolj/article/view/710 (Accessed: March 6, 2023)

4. Tiwary, A. (2020) Section 144 and the pandemic: A look at freedom of speech in Mumbai,

Jurist. Available at: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/10/akshita-tiwary-pandemic-

freedom-of-speech/ (Accessed: March 6, 2023).

5. Wkmpxyz (2021) Analysis of extra-ordinary power U/ sec 144 of CRPC, Criminal Law

Research & Review. Available at: https://crlreview.in/2020/07/19/analysis-of-extra-

ordinary-power-section-144-crpc/ (Accessed: March 6, 2023)

6. Mandal, U. (no date) Critical Analysis of Sec 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973,

Legal Service India E-Journal. Available at: https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-

7116-critical-analysis-of-sec-144-of-the-criminal-procedure-code-1973.html.