Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly without the use of weapons, and this freedom of assembly must be recognized. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution grants its citizens certain fundamental rights in order to protect individual liberty and the preservation of civil rights.
CLAT 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Maxims | Landmark Judgements | PYQs
CUET BA LLB 2025: Legal Studies ebook | 5 Free Mock Tests
MH CET LAW 2025: 10 Free Mock Tests | Legal Reasoning Practice Questions
Monthly Legal Current Affairs: August’24 | July’24 | June’24
Under this article, the freedom to assemble is subject to the need that the gathering be peaceful. This implies that there cannot be any acts of violence, threats of violence, or other disruptive behaviour that could jeopardize the peace and order in the community.
An assembly has the potential to get out of control and harm people, things, or public order. "Unlawful assembly" is the term used to describe such a disorderly gathering. The main justification for making unauthorized assembly illegal is to uphold public order and peace. Through the provision of vicarious culpability, the Penal Code aims to discourage individuals from committing crimes in groups. This is a violation of the peace in public.
According to Section 141, the fundamental characteristic of an unlawful assembly is the collective commission of an offence by five or more persons. This part's primary elements are that there has been a gathering of five or more people and that they have a common object, which has to be one of the five items listed in this section. The phrase "common object" indicates that the item should be shared and owned by every assembly member. The "objective community" is a must.
A minimum of five persons need to be present. Less than five people in a group would not be deemed unlawful. "Whoever, knowing facts that render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly," states Section 142 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the case of, Dharam Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
In this case, the Supreme Court held that "If a court finds that, in addition to the convicted individuals, the unlawful assembly included other individuals who were not identified or could not be named, the remaining accused (less than five) may not be found guilty as members of an unlawful assembly if only five named individuals have been charged with constituting an unlawful assembly and one or more of them have been acquitted."
The phrase "common object" implies that everyone in the group must be working toward the same objective. The objective has to be in line with one of the reasons listed in Section 141.
In the case of, Sheikh Yusuf v. Emperor
In this case, "The word 'object' means the purpose or design to do a thing aimed at," the court ruled, adding that the object "must be common" among the members of the assembly. An object is deemed common when it is shared and owned by at least five members of the assembly.
As was previously established, if five or more persons are present at an assembly and any one of the five things listed below is shared by the participants, the assembly is deemed unlawful under section 141 of the IPC.
The term "overawe" describes the act of making other people fearful. At that point, a public protest that involves the use of force to topple the government as the Stone Pelters do in some parts of Kashmir becomes an unlawful assembly.
Law enforcement is responsible for limiting the number of people who are arrested for opposing the application of the law or a legal process, such as when a court issues an order or verdict. Since the unlawful assembly in the Baba Ram Rahim case in Haryana was committed by a person, the authorities decided to disperse it per section 144 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure.
It would be illegal for five or more people to get together to do an act that is prohibited by the Indian Penal Code, other special or municipal laws, or both.
When an assembly uses unlawful force to deny someone the enjoyment of their right to a way, the right to use water, or any other inherent right that they possess and enjoy. Clause 4 of section 141 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prohibits the foregoing activities, as well as any attempt to take ownership of any property or to impose such rights.
Any gathering that involves the use of criminal force to coerce someone else into committing a crime qualifies as unlawful.
Police officers and magistrates may issue orders to members of an unlawful assembly or potential unlawful assembly to disperse and stop violating public peace, under Section 129 of the Code. To disperse unlawful meetings, powers shall be granted principally to any executive magistrate, officer in command of a police station, or any officer in his absence, but not below the rank of sub-inspector.
In the case of Karam Singh v. Hardayal Singh
In this case, the prerequisites to be satisfied in the dispersal of Unlawful Assembly were mentioned. Initially, there should be an unlawful assembly for violence or an assembly of five or more people who are likely to cause disturbances to the quiet of the public. Second, the component authority is directed to swiftly disperse such an assembly. Third, such an assembly does not disperse or, ex-facie does not appear to be dispersing despite such a dispersion order. The firing took done in a circumstance that did not justify it, and the State also ordered the victim's dependents to be reimbursed without the authority's order because section 129 permits the use of only civil force, i.e., command, order, or warning.
Section 130 of the Cr.P.C. addresses the use of the country's armed forces to disperse an unlawful assembly. It states that the Executive Magistrate may order the use of armed forces to disperse an assembly if she determines that civil force cannot be used to disperse the assembly and that public security requires it.
The Magistrate may order the arrest and custody of members of any of the three Armed Forces, with the cooperation of any group of members from any of the Forces and with such officers under his direction. However, clause 3 stipulates that the commanding magistrate and the armed forces must employ the least amount of force and do the least amount of harm to individuals or property.
Only in cases when the existence of an unlawful assembly endangers public safety will the provisions of section 131 come into play, and no magistrate may be contacted under the designated circumstances. If these two conditions are satisfied, any commissioned or gazette officer of the armed forces may be used by the forces under his command to disperse such an unlawful assembly.
By Section 143 of the I.P.C., an individual who participates in an unapproved assembly has the possibility of facing a maximum six-month sentence in jail, a fine, or both.
Section 144 of the I.P.C. punishes any person who participates in an unlawful assembly while carrying a lethal weapon that has the potential to inflict death. The punishment can be two years in prison, a fine, or both.
Anyone who joins or remains in an unlawful assembly after being told to disperse may face up to two years in prison, a fine, or both under Section 145 of the I.P.C.
When an assembly commits a crime, under Section 149 of the I.P.C., each member who knew the crime was likely to be committed and participated in the unlawful assembly is guilty of the crime. and receive the same sentence for the offence.
In the case of, State of UP v. Sughar Singh
In this case, Five suspects were lying in a bush on either side of a lane, each holding a rifle. As the deceased approached, Accuses 4, 3, and 4 encouraged him. Afterwards, the deceased was shot by Accuses 2, 3, and 4. Threats were made against the witnesses by 1, 2, and 3 of the accused. The trial court found that there was sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that the five accused participants of the unlawful assembly intended to murder the deceased. They had a plan in place. The accused was found guilty at trial. Following an appeal, the top court overturned the conviction. The Supreme Court maintained the accused's conviction.
In the case of, Amar Singh v. State of UP
In this case, At the outset, seven people were accused of offences under sections 148 and 302/149; two of them were found not guilty by the Sessions court and one by the High Court; no one else was accused of the crime. The Court determined that the convictions of the other four could not be upheld because Section 148 or Section 149 requires the presence of at least five people. The remaining four defendants cannot be declared guilty because three of them were found not guilty.
The Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(b) gives the right to assembly peaceably without arms. The right given in the Constitution of India about unlawful assembly is a fundamental right and along with this right, the Constitution of India also provides reasonable restrictions in the Enjoyment of this right. Unlawful assembly means a gathering of persons to commit an offence and disturb the peace and prosperity of the society as a whole. According to the law unlawful assembly is a criminal offence and is punished accordingly.
Section 141 states that the combined commission of an offence by five or more people is the essential feature of an unlawful assembly.
Section 147 of the IPC deals with Punishment for Rioting.
Section 141 of the IPC deals with unlawful Acts.
The ways through which unlawful Assembly is dispersed by use of civil force, Use of Armed Force and use of certain forces among the five mentioned crimes given under the section.
Section 142 of IPC deals with Being a member of the Unlawful Assembly.
18 Nov'24 08:12 AM
17 Nov'24 08:44 AM
17 Nov'24 08:31 AM
17 Nov'24 08:20 AM
13 Nov'24 05:32 PM
06 Nov'24 10:11 AM
06 Nov'24 09:07 AM
05 Nov'24 06:28 PM
26 Sep'24 12:54 AM
19 Sep'24 07:48 AM