"There are rights to movement and speech and expression, it (section 144 of the CrPC) cannot be used just like that...otherwise it would lead to loss of the sanctity," a bench of Chief Justice D Murugesan and Justice V K Jain said.
The court's observations came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by Delhi-based advocate Anand K Mishra, who alleged that the prohibitory order was invoked in an "arbitrary" manner and without following the procedures enshrined under the CrPC.
Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra, however, opposed the plea saying the guidelines for the imposition of prohibitory orders under section 144 of CrPC (which deals with power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger) cannot be framed as all cases are "distinguishable" and contain different facts.
A senior lawyer, appearing for advocate Mishra, said "The whole Capital was traumatised over the gang rape and thousands of girl students and others, who do not feel safe, came to join the social movement. It was not a political movement. The section (144) cannot be used to curtail the constitutional rights."
He also cited various Supreme Court judgements including the verdict on the Ramlila Maidan incident involving Baba Ramdev and his supporters and sought framing of guidelines on the issue.
"As far as this notification (on invoking Section 144 in and around India Gate) is concerned, if that is not in place now then what is the purpose of the petition," Justice Murugesan said.