This article, penned by
, an aspiring law student, sheds light on the far-reaching ramifications of disrupting peace in both public and private domains. With a global perspective, this article navigates the legal dimensions surrounding the breach of peace, revealing its profound impact across borders and societies.
it has been published by Rachit Garg.
In our quest to understand the legality of a breach of peace, we refer to a profound quote by Blaise Pascal:
“Justice without force is impotent; force without justice is tyranny.”
These words resonate deeply with the complexities surrounding the topic at hand. When there is a seesaw between justice and force, the challenge of maintaining peace within a legal framework becomes a daunting task. Let us now delve into the concept of breach of peace and explore its legal implications in light of this quintessential quote.
For starters, a simplistic understanding of the term ‘breach of the peace’ may be derived by first understanding what constitutes a breach. Any act of breaking or violating a rule, law, agreement, or established norm or custom is said to constitute a breach. In case such a violation (breach) results in a disturbance of peace in the community or general public, then the said violation is referred to as a breach of peace. Acts committed in breach of the peace can have serious consequences, resulting in looting, arson, vandalism, destruction of property, and possible loss of lives. Such acts may also occur if someone incites the passions of a crowd by giving hateful or communal speeches or by misleading and misrepresenting facts, which can transform the general public into a mob of angry, restless, and violent citizens.
In Shakespeare’s literary masterpiece ‘Julius Caesar‘, the Roman public is shaken by the assassination of Julius Caesar, who was killed in the Theatre of Pompey in Rome. The plan to assassinate Caesar was hatched by his close friend and confidante, the Roman senator Brutus. Upon hearing the news of Caesar’s assassination, a large crowd gathers at the funeral site. The crowd of mourners is addressed by Mark Antony, a prominent Roman statesman in the Roman Republic. The opening lines of Mark Antony’s famous speech delivered at the funeral of Julius Caesar, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears,” set the tone for an epic delivery of a stirring speech that roused and inflamed the passions of the crowd against the conspirators. The enraged crowd erupted into a frenzy of violence, unleashing a wave of terror upon the conspirators. The collective anger and wrath of the people spilt into the streets, ultimately leading to the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC. In the context of breach of peace, the inflammatory speech delivered by Mark Antony was an act of breach of peace that resulted in acts of violence, looting, and arson.
In the present time, images of violent protesters, rioters, and activists clashing with police officers wielding batons, as well as being sprayed with water cannons and tear gas, are frequently shown on TV channels as part of the daily news cycle worldwide. These incidents clearly demonstrate a disturbance of peace that reflects a sudden disruption and collapse of public order and tranquillity. In every democratic setup, carrying out a peaceful protest is a matter of right. There are provisions to obtain prior sanction from local law enforcement to hold peaceful protests in support of issues of concern to the local community. However, when such protests turn violent and disrupt public peace, tranquillity, and order, the provisions of local applicable laws are invoked to deal with the culprits. It is important to know the laws relating to breach of the peace, as one may inadvertently commit an offence of breach of the peace due to ignorance of the law. Moreover, understanding the legal provisions and the inherent safeguards can provide insight into potential defences if one finds themselves on the wrong side of the law for reasons beyond their control.
Acts committed in breach of peace create a potential for violence or unrest in a community or state. It involves situations where individuals or groups engage in activities that disturb the peaceful coexistence of the inhabitants.
Definition:
According to , a breach of the peace is noisy or violent behaviour in a public place, which is illegal because it disturbs other people.
A breach of peace refers to a disturbance or disruption of public order and tranquillity. It is a comprehensive term that denotes serious misbehaviour, which shatters the public peace and order of the state. If a person intentionally insults someone or a group of people, knowing that it is likely to provoke them to breach the peace or disturb public order, they can face punishment under of the Indian Penal Code. This section categorises such acts as a non-cognizable offence and specifically deals with ‘intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.’, where a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant and initiate an investigation on their own. The punishment for an offence under this section is imprisonment up to two years, or a fine, or both”, To be charged under this Section, there must always be the presence of the most essential ingredient, that is, ‘intentional insult’, beyond the threshold of mere abusive words used in typical fights, a fact noted by the Courts in . The intensity of the provocation caused by the act of intentional insult should be sufficient enough to arouse the other person or group of people to breach the peace. This section is a safeguard for law-abiding citizens who may inadvertently find themselves in situations of extreme stress and distress caused by such intentional insults leading them to act in violation of the law. The fact that the law recognises and addresses such transgressions demonstrates the fairness of our legal system.
A breach of peace refers to actions that threaten public peace, order, and tranquillity or the peaceful coexistence of individuals in society or within a community.
Acts like fighting, rioting, inciting mob violence, making threats, disorderly conduct, excessive noise, or disturbance in public places are generally considered actions that amount to a breach of peace. In order to arrive at a judgement in establishing a breach of peace, it is essential to explore the intent, or ‘mens rea’ (guilty mind), to incite violence and provoke public unrest. Such acts incur legal consequences like criminal and civil liability, fines, and imprisonment.
At the time of writing this blog, the of Anand Mohan Sharma, a former Member of Parliament from Bihar, has resurfaced in the news as a vivid illustration of the criminalization within our political system. Despite the inherent flaws in our body politic, we find solace in the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken serious note of the audacious manner in which the of 2012 was amended through selective tweaking of rules, aimed to expedite the early parole of a politician who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a public servant on duty. The appeal made by the widow of the deceased public servant is scheduled to be heard in the coming months, and there is a strong air of anticipation that the forthcoming judgement will uphold the principles of fairness, equality and justice.
The narrative of this case, as explained in the different parts of this paragraph, bears a marked resemblance to the aftermath of the events in the Shakespearean epic ‘Julius Caesar’ as mentioned in the introduction of this blog. Legal vetting of the case would reveal the presence of all essential elements that define or constitute a breach of peace. By examining the timeline of the events, from the cause of action to the gradual build-up, delivery of inciting speeches followed by a violent explosion, and subsequent criminal offences, one can identify how these elements unfolded on the night of 05 December 1994, when a known history-sheeter Chhotan Shukla, and his associates were shot dead by unknown assailants on NH-28 under Brahampur P.S. of Muzaffarpur, District of Bihar. Next morning, on hearing the news of the murder, a large crowd of agitated supporters assembled at the hospital in the same manner as Roman citizens had gathered at the funeral of Julius Caesar. In apprehension of the breach of peace, the local administration arranged for magisterial and police presence to provide cover and escort the funeral procession that started from the hospital where the autopsy of the dead bodies was conducted. The funeral procession was attended by approximately 5,000 people, including politicians, supporters, and some criminal elements. There was general resentment among the crowd against the police and local administration. The funeral halted at a prominent roundabout where, among other leading politicians, Anand Mohan, like Mark Antony of Julius Caesar, gave an inciting speech and exhorted the crowd to take revenge for the murder, and if the administration would come in the way, then it should also be taught a lesson and Stung by the poison of hate and revenge, the funeral procession was led in the front by designated police and civil officials, and other officials and forces were at the tail-end of the large procession that moved along the highway towards Lalganj. As it reached Khabra village, from the middle part of the procession, noise and an exhortation for the assault were heard. As officials and the informant ran to the scene of commotion, they saw a white-coloured ambassador with a plate scripted D.M. Gopalganj overturned and a man lying critically injured on the road. The informant, Police Inspector J.P. Narain, saw Anand Mohan, among others, instigating one Bhutkun to kill because the person was a D.M. belonging to the administration. As a result of such provocative exhortation, Bhutkun, a tall and slim man aged about 25-26 years, took out a revolver from his waist and, after firing shots, melted in the crowd. Police Inspector, J.P. Narain also claimed to have heard Anand Mohan, among other appellants, exhorting the crowd and asking Bhutkun Shukla to assault, on which Bhutkun fired thrice on the injured person, who was later found to be D.M. of Gopalganj. Here rests the case and the comparison with what happened on the streets of Rome when Mark Antony incited the funeral crowd over the murder of Julius Caesar. Isn’t it ironic that, despite the difference of over a thousand years, the incident that happened in the streets of Rome and in Bihar was incited by political leaders?
In India acts committed in breach of peace have legal consequences depending on the specific offence committed and the existing underlying legal provisions. Common intention and mischief causing damage to property are some of the acts for which an individual can be held liable. The potential legal consequences may include both civil and criminal outcomes, along with penalties, for disturbing the peace.
Different legal provisions exist in the and the that categorise offences as criminal offences that attract criminal liability with punishment that may include punishment or fine or both. The punishment for such offences is commensurate with the severity of the specific offence and the corresponding punishment.
Chapter XX of the CrPC, titled “Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquility,” is dedicated to preserving public order and tranquillity. It serves as a comprehensive framework for handling situations that may disrupt peace in society.
grants the Magistrate the power to take necessary action when a public nuisance exists or is likely to occur. The Magistrate conducts an inquiry into the matter, issues appropriate orders, and directs measures to tackle the nuisance effectively.
outlines the procedural aspects that the magistrate must follow when dealing with public nuisances. It mandates the magistrate issue a written notice to the person responsible for the nuisance, allowing them an opportunity to show cause and present their side of the matter.
In cases where the person responsible for the public nuisance fails to comply with the notice issued under Section 134, empowers the Magistrate to order the removal of the nuisance. Additionally, the Magistrate is entitled to recover any expenses incurred from the person responsible.
deals with situations where the orders issued under Section 133 are not followed. In such cases, the Magistrate can pass a final order to close the place where the public nuisance exists or persists. This provision grants the Magistrate the authority to authorise necessary measures for abating the nuisance and restoring public order and tranquillity.
This revolves around the jurisdiction and powers of the Sub-divisional Magistrate in maintaining public order and addressing nuisances,
In simple terms, a public nuisance refers to any activity or condition that interferes with the rights and comfort of the general public or a significant number of people in a community. It can be an action, behaviour, or even a physical thing that causes inconvenience, annoyance, or harm to the people in a particular area.
Imagine you live in a neighbourhood, and there’s a house where the residents blare loud music, indulge in shouting, and create disturbance and noise that keeps everyone in the area awake and disturbs their peace. This constant disturbance caused by the party house would be considered a public nuisance because it negatively affects the quality of life of the people living in the nearby vicinity.
Similarly, a public nuisance could be a factory emitting noxious odours, a construction site blocking off sidewalks and causing inconvenience to pedestrians, or even a property that’s infested with pests and spreading diseases to neighbouring homes. and uncontrolled animals that roam freely, causing fear or disturbance to the public are some examples of public nuisance.
Maintaining public order and tranquillity is of paramount importance for any society. It is the government’s responsibility to maintain peace, law, and order in public places. To address situations of disorder, there are several provisions laid down in the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and for the maintenance of public order and tranquillity. These provisions will be highlighted in the subsequent sections, along with relevant case laws.
is an essential chapter in the history of the Indian Judiciary as, for the first time, the Supreme Court held a company completely responsible for the gas leakage, irrespective of its defence and claimed loss.
Before the MC Mehta vs Union of India case, the legal principle of Strict Liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher was in effect. Under this principle, owners or operators of industries were held liable for any inherently dangerous activities occurring on their property. However, the application of Strict Liability had certain defences and limited exceptions, such as the defence of the ‘Act of God.’
The Supreme Court recognised that strict liability had certain limitations and defences that could dilute its effectiveness in dealing with the environmental and public health consequences of hazardous industries. Therefore, to ensure greater protection of the environment and the rights of affected individuals, the Supreme Court adopted the principle of absolute liability that eliminates the various defences and exceptions available under strict liability, ensuring that there are no escape clauses.
Shriram Foods & Fertilisers Industries, located in a heavily populated area in Delhi, emitted hazardous substances, causing harm to people living in the vicinity.
On December 4, 1985, a major leakage of oleum gas occurred from one of Shriram’s units, affecting the public, including workers and people outside the factory. An advocate also died due to inhalation of the gas.
Two days later, a minor leakage of oleum gas took place from a pipe joint.
In response to the incidents, the Delhi administration issued an order to Shriram to cease using harmful chemicals, remove them to a safer place, and appear before the District Magistrate to explain non-compliance.
The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, sought the closure of Shriram’s units due to their hazardous nature and the harm caused to the surrounding population.
Shriram filed an application seeking clarification on certain orders related to the reopening of its caustic chlorine plant.
The validity of multiple orders demanding the cessation of Shriram’s production was challenged in a separate writ petition filed by Shriram.
Whether Shriram should be allowed to restart its operation of manufacturing caustic chlorine and oleum, which is potentially a health hazard, and whether it would be a violation of Article 21?
What is the measure of liability of an enterprise engaged in the manufacturing of a hazardous or inherently dangerous substance which poses a potential risk to the health of the community at large?
Whether Shriram Industry is a ‘state’ and comes under the ambit of Article 12, so as to hold it liable under Article 21
Can compensation from Shriram Industries be claimed under Article 21?
On February 17, 1986, a three-judge bench consisting of the Chief Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati, along with Justices D.P. Mason and G.L. Oza addressed the reopening of Shriram’s caustic chlorine plant.
On March 10, 1986, the Supreme Court issued another order based on Shriram’s application for modification of certain orders.
On December 20, 1986, a five-judge Constitution Bench pronounced the final judgement. The judgement introduced the principle of “Absolute Liability,” stating that industries engaged in inherently dangerous activities would be held absolutely liable for any harm caused to the environment or people due to accidents.
The judgement emphasised the application of the absolute liability principle to industries like Shriram and directed the closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant.
There are two types of nuisance viz., public nuisance and private nuisance. A public nuisance is dealt with under the provisions of of the IPC and a private nuisance is dealt with under the law of torts.
Public nuisance and private nuisance are two distinct legal concepts and they are addressed differently under the law.
Public nuisance refers to activities, conditions, or behaviours that interfere with the rights and comfort of the general public or a significant number of people in a community. It is governed by the provisions of Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code,IPC in India, which defines the offence of public nuisance. Some examples of public nuisances are blocking public roads, polluting water bodies, or creating excessive noise that disturbs a large number of people. In such cases, the state or public authorities are responsible for taking legal action to control or eliminate the public nuisance.
Private Nuisance is a kind of nuisance in which a person’s use or enjoyment of his property is ruined by another. It may also injuriously affect the owner of the property by physically injuring his property or by affecting the enjoyment of the property. Unlike public nuisance, in private nuisance, an individual’s usage or enjoyment of property is ruined as distinguished from the public or society at large. The remedy for private nuisance under the law of torts is a civil action for damages or an injunction or both.
The interference must be unreasonable or unlawful. It meant that the act should not be justifiable in the eyes of the law and should be an act which no reasonable man would do.
Such interference has to be with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some rights over the property, or it should be in connection with the property or physical discomfort.
There should be visible damage to the property or with the enjoyment of the property in order to constitute a private nuisance.
Prescription is a defence that allows a person to claim property rights based on long-term use and possession. If a nuisance has been openly and peacefully ongoing without any interruption for a period of twenty years, the defence of prescription may apply. Once this twenty-year period elapses, the nuisance becomes legalised as if it had been authorised from the beginning by the landowner. The essentials to establishing a person’s right by prescription are:
The essence of prescription is further explained in and
This defence comes into play when a statute permits a particular action or use of land. When a statute grants authority, all remedies, whether through legal action, indictment, or charges, are negated, provided that reasonable precautions have been taken.
There are two types of statutory authority:
The above defences serve as legal justifications for the accused party in defending against a tort action.
In the case of , the defendant wrongfully obstructed a public navigable creek, preventing the plaintiff from transporting goods through the waterway. As a result, the plaintiff had to transport the goods over land, incurring additional transportation costs. It was determined that the defendant’s actions constituted a public nuisance, as the plaintiff successfully proved that they incurred losses distinct from other members of society. Thus, the plaintiff had a right to take legal action against the defendant
In the case of , Mr. Gur Prasad Saxena and another person filed a lawsuit against Mr. Radhey Shyam and five others. They sought a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from installing and operating a flour mill on the premises they occupied. Additionally, Gur Prasad Saxena filed another lawsuit against Radhey Shyam and the five others, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent them from operating an oil expeller plant.
The plaintiffs claimed that the noise generated by the mill was causing health problems for them. The court determined that the defendant’s operation of a flour mill in a residential area constituted a nuisance that severely impacted the plaintiff’s health. As a result, it was held that the defendant’s actions were causing harm to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction.
Let us apply our reasoning and understanding to know the difference in the concept of public nuisance and private nuisance in the case of the following scenarios:
Scenario 1. When flash mobs unexpectedly break into a song-and-dance sequence at airports, railway stations, shopping malls, public parks, etc., is it an act of breach of the peace?
Analysis: No, in such events, the administrators and the public are in mutual consent or agreement to enjoy this brief intermission of joy and laughter. In the light of the fact that our law permits peaceful expression of dissent in a democracy, therefore for expressions of joy and happiness, there can be no bar.
Scenario 2. Vivek had cheated Ajay in the past. In retaliation, Ajay hires a group of eunuchs (‘hijra’s / transgenders) to dance in front of Vivek’s house. Is this an act of private nuisance that Ankur has committed on Vivek’s property?
Analysis: Certainly, Ajay has committed an act of private nuisance on Vivek’s property. Now, it is up to Vivek to initiate legal action against Ajay or keep quiet for fear of public ridicule.
Note: Scenario 2 may sound hypothetical and that is true. However, if we see it in the context of the saying ‘objects in the mirror are closer than they appear‘, then perhaps such incidents could figure in the majority of unreported cases in our vast and populous country.
In legal terms, if a group of five or more people come together with a shared intention to commit an unlawful act, or to intimidate or provoke others to commit a crime, it is called an unlawful assembly under of the Indian Penal Code.
If members of this unlawful assembly use force or violence to achieve their common and shared objective, each member can be held accountable for the actions of any other member in pursuit of that objective. This means that if one person in the assembly commits a crime during the assembly, all members can be held responsible for that crime, even if they didn’t directly participate in it. This principle is established by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
To establish an offence of unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC, the following elements must be fulfilled:
4.1 to commit an offence.
4.2 to commit an act which is illegal by criminal force, or
4.3 to intimidate or provoke others to commit an offence.
It is important to note that the mere fact of an assembly of five or more people is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 141 IPC. The assembly must also possess a common object that falls within the scope of the section. If the assembly’s common object is lawful, it does not constitute an offence under this section, even if the assembly turns violent or unruly.
The trial court acquitted all the accused, citing inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony and a lack of a clear motive.
Rioting refers to a violent or tumultuous disturbance of public peace by an unlawful
assembly.
Affray is an offence defined under . According to this section, when two or more persons engage in a fight in a public place, thereby disturbing the public peace, they are said to commit an affray.
The essential elements of the offence of affray under Section 159 IPC are as follows:
In cases of affray, the focus is on the act of fighting itself and its impact on public peace. The intention behind the fight or the motives of the individuals involved is not relevant to establish the offence of affray.
If the elements of a fight occurring in a public place and disturbing the public peace are established, individuals involved in the affray can be charged and held accountable under Section 159 IPC. Punishment for the offence of affray as defined under is imprisonment up to a period of one month or a fine of rupees one hundred or both.
After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, the court concluded that:
Civil liability means that if someone causes harm or damage to another person or their property because of a breach of peace, they may be legally held responsible for paying compensation.
In India, a breach of the peace is usually treated as a criminal offence. But in some cases, the court can also order the defendant who caused the damage to pay money to the plaintiff who is aggrieved on account of injury or damage to his property suffered as a direct or indirect consequence.
When someone wants to get monetary compensation as a fall out of an act committed in breach of peace., they can go to a civil court and file a lawsuit. If the Court orders payment of compensation, then the person or entity responsible for the same is liable to pay the compensation as ordered by the Court.
Global peace conventions refer to international agreements and treaties that aim to promote and maintain peace among nations. While they may not specify provisions on breaches of peace, they do provide the framework to promote peaceful relations among nations and prevent conflict.
The , adopted in 1945, sets the foundation for the United Nations and its principal organs. It outlines the roles and responsibilities of the five key organs, with one of them being the Security Council. The Security Council plays a crucial role in ensuring global peace and security. To address situations where peace is threatened, the Council has the authority to take different measures, such as diplomacy, economic sanctions, or even military intervention. Presently, many countries like Russia, North Korea, Sudan, Libya, Iran etc. are placed under the Security Council sanctions that touch upon various categories that may include restrictions on trade in goods and services and in engaging in commercial activities, financial actions like freezing of assets of terrorist organisations and of individuals on the radar of international watch agencies and travel bans on specific persons.
While the United Nations Charter may not specify provisions for breach of peace, it does provide the framework to promote peaceful relations among nations and prevent conflict. The Charter’s emphasis on diplomacy, collective security, and the peaceful resolution of disputes underlines its commitment to global peace. By establishing a forum for international cooperation and dialogue, the Charter encourages countries to work together and find peaceful solutions to potential conflicts. This collaborative approach serves as a means to address issues before they escalate into breaches of peace, thereby promoting stability and harmony among nations.
The is an improvement over the earlier conventions. These conventions have been widely ratified by many countries all over the world. The Geneva Conventions provide protection for civilians, prisoners of war, and wounded or sick. Parties to the convention are obligated to ensure compliance with the provisions and violations can be prosecuted as war crimes.
is an international human rights treaty adopted in 1966. It enables people to enjoy a wide range of human rights including freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Penalties against violations include diplomatic pressure, condemnation or economic sanctions. India is a signatory to ICCPR. It is largely due to the initiatives and efforts of the ICCPR that today the death penalty stands abolished or significantly reduced in many countries. of the ICCPR states that the death penalty should only be applied for the most serious crimes and after a fair trial.
Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICC is an intergovernmental organisation with 123 member states. It is a tribunal that investigates and charges individuals in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression.
Member states are obliged under the ICC’s founding treaty called the ‘ ‘ as it was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome, India abstained from the motion to adopt the Statute at the conclusion of the conference for reasons related to the powers given to the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the non-inclusion of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in actions that would constitute a war crime.
The Rome Statute establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) that has jurisdiction over all individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crime against humanity. Breaches of peace involving such crimes can be investigated and prosecuted by ICC.
On 17 March, the Hague-based tribunal issued against Putin and his Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, for the alleged unlawful deportation of children amid the Ukraine war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin will still be able to attend the G20 Summit in New Delhi to be held in Sept this year as India is not part of the ICC.
In May 2023, South Africa announced that they would grant diplomatic immunity to Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials so that they could attend the 15th BRICS Summit in August 2023, despite the ICC arrest warrant.
One notable case law related to the Bosnian War is the case of (2016), tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,(ICTY). Radovan Karadžić, a former political leader of the Bosnian Serbs, was charged with multiple counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed during the Bosnian War.
The case relates to the Bosnian War that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995, following the breakup of Yugoslavia and it involved multiple ethnic and political groups. The main parties involved were Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims).
The Bosnian Serb forces, led by political leader Radovan Karadžić, sought to create a separate Serbian state within Bosnia and Herzegovina. They engaged in widespread campaigns of ethnic cleansing, targeting Bosniak and Croat populations, which involved forced displacement, mass killings, sexual violence, and other atrocities.
The war ended with the signing of the in 1995, which established a peace settlement and divided Bosnia and Herzegovina into two semi-autonomous entities: Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The case against Radovan Karadžić addressed various incidents, including the Srebrenica genocide, the shelling and sniping campaigns against civilians in Sarajevo, and the forced displacement of non-Serb populations. The ICTY found Radovan Karadžić guilty on several charges, including genocide, extermination, and persecution, and sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2016.
The prosecution and conviction of Radovan Karadžić by the ICTY exemplify the global effort to bring justice to those responsible for breaching the peace and committing grave human rights violations during the Bosnian War.
In 2009 and 2010, in the case of (2009) an arrest warrant was issued against Sudanese President, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir for genocide in Darfur and this was the first time the Court issues a warrant for a head of state. Interestingly, in 2015, ahead of the then-Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s visit to New Delhi for the .
In the case of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (2016), the Islamic militant, was sentenced to nine years of prison after pleading guilty to war crimes which included the destruction of religious historic monuments in Mali.
Having navigated through the labyrinth of laws governing acts committed in the breach of peace within our land, we can now shift our focus beyond the sovereign limits of India. As we know, the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war is fiercely opposed by the U.S. and its allies, and it is impacting oil prices worldwide. The possibility of escalation in the conflict is causing anxiety among world leaders. The support rendered to Ukraine by the U.S. and its allies is based on their adherence to international law as signatories to treaties on international cooperation, human rights, and military aggression. The subject of International Law is constantly evolving and expanding in scope to the extent that it has permeated the realm of culture and diversity.
It is essential to consider what happens when a criminal commits a crime in Delhi and is eventually caught in Mumbai. This becomes possible through the framework of inter-state police cooperation. Expanding upon the same analogy, let us delve into the extradition of a dreaded terrorist who commits an act of terrorism within India and seeks refuge in a foreign country such as the UK, USA, or any other participating nation. Remarkably, their extradition back to India is feasible due to the existence of international law, to which these countries are signatories.
Interpol, the , plays a commendable role in combating transnational crime. Its Red Notices frequently make headlines, and it has become a prominent fixture in popular culture. Founded in 1923, Interpol serves as a platform for member countries to exchange information and coordinate efforts against transnational criminal activities.
Interpol’s primary mission is to promote global security and combat various forms of organised crime, including terrorism, cybercrime, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and financial crimes. Through its network of member countries, Interpol enables law enforcement agencies to collaborate, coordinate investigations, and apprehend criminals who operate across borders.
The capture of Zhenli Ye Gon: Interpol’s Red Notice led to the of Ye Gon, a Chinese-Mexican businessman involved in drug trafficking. This operation seized over $205 million in cash, one of the largest amounts ever confiscated.
The arrest of Radovan Karadzic: Interpol facilitated the arrest of , a former president indicted for crimes against humanity and genocide during the Bosnian War.
: In what is the largest coordinated international law enforcement effort targeting an online cyber-criminal forum, the FBI and its partners from 20 countries dismantled a forum known as Darkode.
: Interpol’s Operation Pandora successfully recovered over 3,500 stolen archaeological artefacts and artworks, combating art theft and preserving cultural heritage.
The term ‘International law’ was first used by the legal theorist, ‘Jeremy Bentham’ ( 1748- 1832 ) in 1780. A definition of International law by J.L. Briely appears most relevant to contemporary times, “The law of nations of international law may be defined as the body of rules and principle of action, which are binding upon civilized states in their relation with one another”.
We must recognise that international law plays a vital role in facilitating international travel, trade by sea or air, and human migration from one country to another. It governs how the world addresses situations when aeroplanes enter the airspace of foreign nations or when cargo ships navigate through international waters. These interactions highlight the significant influence of international law in enabling and regulating these global activities and more importantly, in addressing issues of international crime.
Transnational organised crime is a big problem that affects the safety of people all around the world. It involves illegal activities like smuggling drugs, hiding money obtained illegally, using violence to get what they want, and trafficking women and children. This kind of crime can destabilise countries and make it harder for them to keep their citizens safe.
To fight against transnational organised crime, countries need to work together. The United Nations has created a special committee to develop a worldwide agreement to address this issue. Experts are discussing ways to improve cooperation between countries when it comes to sharing legal assistance and extraditing criminals.
One challenge is figuring out if a crime is illegal in both the requesting and requested countries, which is also known as the concept of . This can be a complicated and time-consuming process. To make it easier, some experts suggest allowing witnesses and others involved in a case to give their statements through video calls or other modern communication methods.
Another deterrent is the double jeopardy , which debars punishment for the same crime twice. David Headley, an American terrorist who planned the Mumbai attacks on November 26, 2008, has already been imprisoned by US courts for 35 years for killing six Americans. However, he has not yet been tried in Indian courts for the deaths of almost 174 Indian nationals including 26 foreign nationals in the .
Another challenge is when a country refuses to extradite a criminal, especially if the crime is considered political. This can make it harder to bring criminals to justice and fight against transnational organised crime.
In conclusion, transnational organised crime is a serious problem that requires cooperation between countries. Efforts are being made at the international and regional levels to fight against this crime, but challenges related to legal cooperation and protecting rights need to be addressed.
Julian Assange is an Australian journalist and the founder of WikiLeaks, an international organisation known for publishing classified information from anonymous sources. The case of Julian Assange raises various legal and ethical questions, particularly in the context of international law.
Assange gained international attention in 2010 when WikiLeaks released a significant amount of classified material, causing diplomatic and political repercussions for numerous governments. The methods used by WikiLeaks to obtain and disseminate classified information raise questions about the boundaries of legal and ethical conduct in the digital age.
From an international law perspective, there are several aspects to consider:
In 2012, Assange sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, as he feared extradition to the United States, where he faced potential criminal charges related to his WikiLeaks activities. Ecuador granted him asylum, claiming that he could face political persecution if extradited.
The UK government considered Assange’s presence in the Ecuadorian Embassy a violation of their obligations under international law. The situation raised questions about the boundaries and limitations of diplomatic asylum and the importance of maintaining diplomatic relations between countries.
After spending seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange was arrested by British authorities in April 2019. The arrest was based on an extradition request from the United States, where he faced charges under the Espionage Act for the unauthorised disclosure of classified information. The extradition process involved legal arguments related to human rights, freedom of speech, and the nature of the charges against him.
Landmark judgements shed light on important legal principles and provide guidelines on breaches of the peace, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the rights and responsibilities of individuals and law enforcement agencies in maintaining public order in India.
In this , it was held that the right to assemble peacefully without arms is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution. The judgement emphasised that peaceful protests are essential for a vibrant democracy so any restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly should be reasonable.
In this while an order promulgating was in force for a period of 15 days, the petitioner took it as an invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 19(1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution and held a meeting outside the specified areas and exhorted the workers to take out processions in the notified areas in defiance of said the order. Having failed to get relief, the petitioner moved the High Court of Maharashtra under challenging the constitutional validity of Section 144 of the Code. The Court in its judgement held that the State has the power to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully in order to maintain public order.
In this , the Supreme Court clarified that mere membership of a banned organisation does not automatically make the person criminal or liable for prosecution for breach of peace. To establish liability for breach of peace, the court held that there should be clear evidence of the participation of the individual in an unlawful assembly or act of incitement to violence.
In this , the issue at stake was the divergence of opinions between different benches of the court with regard to the ambit and scope of and in particular with regard to the admissibility of the evidence collected by an investigating officer during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Court held that it is a mandatory requirement of Section 50 that when an officer duly authorised under is about to search a person, he must inform him of his right under sub-section (1) thereof being taken to the nearest notified officer or nearest Magistrate for making the search. In this case, the Court held that there have been violations of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; hence, the accused can not be held guilty under the NDPS Act.
The judgement in this established that criticism of the Government or the expression of unpopular views unless accompanied by incitement to violence or an attempt to create public disturbance does not constitute sedition or breach of peace.
Shifting our focus from the legal aspects, it is important to acknowledge that the pursuit of inner peace is a universal aspiration shared by all individuals. Expressions like “comfort zone,” “my own space,” or “leave me alone” commonly used in everyday language reflect this desire. Many people seek serenity by visiting tranquil hill stations, engaging in yoga retreats, and exploring various forms of meditation and activities to cultivate awareness and tranquillity.
However, preserving peace extends beyond the internal struggle for individual tranquillity. There is an equally significant challenge in maintaining peace in the external world, encompassing our neighbourhoods, cities, states, and countries. As we have examined the legalities surrounding the breach of peace in this blog, we have realised the profound implications of global peace and its impact on our survival.
Consider the plight of Indian students who were studying in Ukraine, a relatively peaceful country, but were abruptly displaced due to the Russian invasion. These students had to seek refuge in safer zones before eventually being evacuated back to India. The scale of this operation, named ‘Operation Ganga’ by the Government of India, was staggering, with over 16,000 students requiring assistance. The financial burden borne by the parents, emotional traumas, lost opportunities, setbacks to careers, and anxieties about the future make the situation even more daunting.
From sporadic Incidents of Indian students being subjected to racial abuse in countries like Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA, it is now almost a pattern that can be seen on account of the regularity of such occurrences. In fact, informed parents should take into account the prevailing geo-political situation in the country where their child desires to study.
Think about the plight of citizens who have been victims of state oppression and dictatorships. Throughout this blog, we have encountered examples of strict actions taken by international organisations like the International Criminal Court to hold political leaders accountable for their crimes and impose sanctions on countries that defy international norms. Countries like North Korea, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Ukraine, Pakistan, and many others have become hotspots from where violence emanates, affecting global peace.
These instances highlight the urgency and importance of strengthening the global interconnectedness and interdependence of our modern world so as to tackle such challenges head-on.They emphasise that individual well-being and peace are intricately linked to the broader concept of global peace. In an era where events in one part of the world can have far-reaching consequences across borders, it is crucial that we recognise the importance of fostering peace within ourselves, our communities, our nations, and the world at large.
With our understanding of the intricacies of the legalities surrounding the breach of peace, it is essential to reflect upon the timeless words of Mahatma Gandhi, “In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” These profound words hold significant relevance within the context of a breach of peace, reminding us that true strength lies not in acts of violence, chaos, or destruction but in nurturing a society that embraces the principles of harmony and peaceful coexistence.
It is vital to acknowledge that breaching the peace not only disrupts immediate tranquillity but also carries legal consequences. In the realm of law, acts that incite violence, create disorder, or cause extensive damage to public and private property are considered offences against the social order.
However, it is crucial to differentiate between peaceful expression of dissent and actions that pose no threat to public safety and order. In a society that values freedom of speech and diverse opinions, unpopular views, unless accompanied by incitement to violence or an attempt to create a public disturbance, do not constitute sedition or breach of peace.
In conclusion, let us embrace Gandhi’s wisdom and recognize the significance of peaceful means in addressing social conflicts. By upholding the principles of harmony and peaceful coexistence, we can collectively strive to create a world where the peaceful resolution of conflicts prevails, promoting stability and a sense of security for all.
Breach of peace refers to actions that threaten to disrupt public order, disturb public peace or create an atmosphere of violence and unrest in society.
Yes, it is a criminal offence with a punishment of a maximum of two years or a fine or both.
Breach of peace can happen in private settings also. For example, a group of men shouting loudly and physically fighting with each other inside their apartment, or such violent behaviour at the workplace or gym is cause for breach of the peace as such actions disturb the prevailing peace and order in the given context.
Syria is one such country that has been singled out for gross violations by various global bodies including the United Nations and its affiliated organisations. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has been monitoring and reporting on human rights violations in Syria. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic has in its report detailed breaches of the peace, chemical weapons use and attacking civilians and damaging civilian infrastructure.
Students of regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on and subscribe to our channel for more amazing legal content.
The post appeared first on .
it has been published by Rachit Garg.
Introduction
In our quest to understand the legality of a breach of peace, we refer to a profound quote by Blaise Pascal:
“Justice without force is impotent; force without justice is tyranny.”
These words resonate deeply with the complexities surrounding the topic at hand. When there is a seesaw between justice and force, the challenge of maintaining peace within a legal framework becomes a daunting task. Let us now delve into the concept of breach of peace and explore its legal implications in light of this quintessential quote.
For starters, a simplistic understanding of the term ‘breach of the peace’ may be derived by first understanding what constitutes a breach. Any act of breaking or violating a rule, law, agreement, or established norm or custom is said to constitute a breach. In case such a violation (breach) results in a disturbance of peace in the community or general public, then the said violation is referred to as a breach of peace. Acts committed in breach of the peace can have serious consequences, resulting in looting, arson, vandalism, destruction of property, and possible loss of lives. Such acts may also occur if someone incites the passions of a crowd by giving hateful or communal speeches or by misleading and misrepresenting facts, which can transform the general public into a mob of angry, restless, and violent citizens.
In Shakespeare’s literary masterpiece ‘Julius Caesar‘, the Roman public is shaken by the assassination of Julius Caesar, who was killed in the Theatre of Pompey in Rome. The plan to assassinate Caesar was hatched by his close friend and confidante, the Roman senator Brutus. Upon hearing the news of Caesar’s assassination, a large crowd gathers at the funeral site. The crowd of mourners is addressed by Mark Antony, a prominent Roman statesman in the Roman Republic. The opening lines of Mark Antony’s famous speech delivered at the funeral of Julius Caesar, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears,” set the tone for an epic delivery of a stirring speech that roused and inflamed the passions of the crowd against the conspirators. The enraged crowd erupted into a frenzy of violence, unleashing a wave of terror upon the conspirators. The collective anger and wrath of the people spilt into the streets, ultimately leading to the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC. In the context of breach of peace, the inflammatory speech delivered by Mark Antony was an act of breach of peace that resulted in acts of violence, looting, and arson.
In the present time, images of violent protesters, rioters, and activists clashing with police officers wielding batons, as well as being sprayed with water cannons and tear gas, are frequently shown on TV channels as part of the daily news cycle worldwide. These incidents clearly demonstrate a disturbance of peace that reflects a sudden disruption and collapse of public order and tranquillity. In every democratic setup, carrying out a peaceful protest is a matter of right. There are provisions to obtain prior sanction from local law enforcement to hold peaceful protests in support of issues of concern to the local community. However, when such protests turn violent and disrupt public peace, tranquillity, and order, the provisions of local applicable laws are invoked to deal with the culprits. It is important to know the laws relating to breach of the peace, as one may inadvertently commit an offence of breach of the peace due to ignorance of the law. Moreover, understanding the legal provisions and the inherent safeguards can provide insight into potential defences if one finds themselves on the wrong side of the law for reasons beyond their control.
What is breach of peace
Acts committed in breach of peace create a potential for violence or unrest in a community or state. It involves situations where individuals or groups engage in activities that disturb the peaceful coexistence of the inhabitants.
Definition:
According to , a breach of the peace is noisy or violent behaviour in a public place, which is illegal because it disturbs other people.
A breach of peace refers to a disturbance or disruption of public order and tranquillity. It is a comprehensive term that denotes serious misbehaviour, which shatters the public peace and order of the state. If a person intentionally insults someone or a group of people, knowing that it is likely to provoke them to breach the peace or disturb public order, they can face punishment under of the Indian Penal Code. This section categorises such acts as a non-cognizable offence and specifically deals with ‘intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace.’, where a police officer can arrest a person without a warrant and initiate an investigation on their own. The punishment for an offence under this section is imprisonment up to two years, or a fine, or both”, To be charged under this Section, there must always be the presence of the most essential ingredient, that is, ‘intentional insult’, beyond the threshold of mere abusive words used in typical fights, a fact noted by the Courts in . The intensity of the provocation caused by the act of intentional insult should be sufficient enough to arouse the other person or group of people to breach the peace. This section is a safeguard for law-abiding citizens who may inadvertently find themselves in situations of extreme stress and distress caused by such intentional insults leading them to act in violation of the law. The fact that the law recognises and addresses such transgressions demonstrates the fairness of our legal system.
Essentials of breach of peace
A breach of peace refers to actions that threaten public peace, order, and tranquillity or the peaceful coexistence of individuals in society or within a community.
Acts like fighting, rioting, inciting mob violence, making threats, disorderly conduct, excessive noise, or disturbance in public places are generally considered actions that amount to a breach of peace. In order to arrive at a judgement in establishing a breach of peace, it is essential to explore the intent, or ‘mens rea’ (guilty mind), to incite violence and provoke public unrest. Such acts incur legal consequences like criminal and civil liability, fines, and imprisonment.
Case law highlighting essential elements of breach of peace
State of Bihar v. Anand Mohan & Ors (2008)
At the time of writing this blog, the of Anand Mohan Sharma, a former Member of Parliament from Bihar, has resurfaced in the news as a vivid illustration of the criminalization within our political system. Despite the inherent flaws in our body politic, we find solace in the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has taken serious note of the audacious manner in which the of 2012 was amended through selective tweaking of rules, aimed to expedite the early parole of a politician who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a public servant on duty. The appeal made by the widow of the deceased public servant is scheduled to be heard in the coming months, and there is a strong air of anticipation that the forthcoming judgement will uphold the principles of fairness, equality and justice.
The narrative of this case, as explained in the different parts of this paragraph, bears a marked resemblance to the aftermath of the events in the Shakespearean epic ‘Julius Caesar’ as mentioned in the introduction of this blog. Legal vetting of the case would reveal the presence of all essential elements that define or constitute a breach of peace. By examining the timeline of the events, from the cause of action to the gradual build-up, delivery of inciting speeches followed by a violent explosion, and subsequent criminal offences, one can identify how these elements unfolded on the night of 05 December 1994, when a known history-sheeter Chhotan Shukla, and his associates were shot dead by unknown assailants on NH-28 under Brahampur P.S. of Muzaffarpur, District of Bihar. Next morning, on hearing the news of the murder, a large crowd of agitated supporters assembled at the hospital in the same manner as Roman citizens had gathered at the funeral of Julius Caesar. In apprehension of the breach of peace, the local administration arranged for magisterial and police presence to provide cover and escort the funeral procession that started from the hospital where the autopsy of the dead bodies was conducted. The funeral procession was attended by approximately 5,000 people, including politicians, supporters, and some criminal elements. There was general resentment among the crowd against the police and local administration. The funeral halted at a prominent roundabout where, among other leading politicians, Anand Mohan, like Mark Antony of Julius Caesar, gave an inciting speech and exhorted the crowd to take revenge for the murder, and if the administration would come in the way, then it should also be taught a lesson and Stung by the poison of hate and revenge, the funeral procession was led in the front by designated police and civil officials, and other officials and forces were at the tail-end of the large procession that moved along the highway towards Lalganj. As it reached Khabra village, from the middle part of the procession, noise and an exhortation for the assault were heard. As officials and the informant ran to the scene of commotion, they saw a white-coloured ambassador with a plate scripted D.M. Gopalganj overturned and a man lying critically injured on the road. The informant, Police Inspector J.P. Narain, saw Anand Mohan, among others, instigating one Bhutkun to kill because the person was a D.M. belonging to the administration. As a result of such provocative exhortation, Bhutkun, a tall and slim man aged about 25-26 years, took out a revolver from his waist and, after firing shots, melted in the crowd. Police Inspector, J.P. Narain also claimed to have heard Anand Mohan, among other appellants, exhorting the crowd and asking Bhutkun Shukla to assault, on which Bhutkun fired thrice on the injured person, who was later found to be D.M. of Gopalganj. Here rests the case and the comparison with what happened on the streets of Rome when Mark Antony incited the funeral crowd over the murder of Julius Caesar. Isn’t it ironic that, despite the difference of over a thousand years, the incident that happened in the streets of Rome and in Bihar was incited by political leaders?
Liability on breach of peace
In India acts committed in breach of peace have legal consequences depending on the specific offence committed and the existing underlying legal provisions. Common intention and mischief causing damage to property are some of the acts for which an individual can be held liable. The potential legal consequences may include both civil and criminal outcomes, along with penalties, for disturbing the peace.
Criminal Liability (CrPC),1973 and (IPC),1860
Different legal provisions exist in the and the that categorise offences as criminal offences that attract criminal liability with punishment that may include punishment or fine or both. The punishment for such offences is commensurate with the severity of the specific offence and the corresponding punishment.
Chapter XX of the CrPC, titled “Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquility,” is dedicated to preserving public order and tranquillity. It serves as a comprehensive framework for handling situations that may disrupt peace in society.
Dealing with public nuisances (Section 133), CrPC, 1973
grants the Magistrate the power to take necessary action when a public nuisance exists or is likely to occur. The Magistrate conducts an inquiry into the matter, issues appropriate orders, and directs measures to tackle the nuisance effectively.
Procedure for addressing public nuisances (Section 134), CrPC,1973
outlines the procedural aspects that the magistrate must follow when dealing with public nuisances. It mandates the magistrate issue a written notice to the person responsible for the nuisance, allowing them an opportunity to show cause and present their side of the matter.
Order to Remove Public Nuisances (Section 135), CrPC,1973
In cases where the person responsible for the public nuisance fails to comply with the notice issued under Section 134, empowers the Magistrate to order the removal of the nuisance. Additionally, the Magistrate is entitled to recover any expenses incurred from the person responsible.
Consequences of Non-Compliance (Section 136), CrPC, 1973
deals with situations where the orders issued under Section 133 are not followed. In such cases, the Magistrate can pass a final order to close the place where the public nuisance exists or persists. This provision grants the Magistrate the authority to authorise necessary measures for abating the nuisance and restoring public order and tranquillity.
Case law on powers of SDM to stop public nuisance
Nagarjuna Paper Mills Ltd. v. Sub-divisional Magistrate (1987)
This revolves around the jurisdiction and powers of the Sub-divisional Magistrate in maintaining public order and addressing nuisances,
Facts of the case
- The petitioner, Nagarjuna Paper Mills Ltd., is a joint venture with A.P. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. engaged in the manufacture of M.G. Posters and M.G. Kraft paper using 100% waste paper.
- The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) convened a meeting to address pollution problems in Patancheru, attended by the petitioner and other industry representatives.
- The Sub-divisional Magistrate issued a notice under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to the petitioner, ordering them to cease production activities due to alleged water and air pollution causing discomfort and injury to public health and cattle.
- The petitioner claimed that a common effluent plant was proposed in the meeting to address pollution issues and that they had requested an appreciation certificate from the Pollution Control Board.
- The Sub-divisional Magistrate passed a final order under Section 136 of the Cr.P.C., authorising the closure of the petitioner’s factory for failing to produce the appreciation certificate.
- The petitioner filed a petition under of the Cr.P.C. to quash the order, claiming that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had no authority to pass such an order.
Issues involved
- Whether the Sub-divisional Magistrate had the authority to pass the order under Section 136 of the Cr.P.C. to close the petitioner’s factory.
- Whether the Pollution Control Board alone had the power to address pollution issues and the Sub-divisional Magistrate’s authority was limited.
Judgement
- The court held that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had the power to take action under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C. in cases of removal of nuisance based on police reports or other information.
- The court rejected the argument that the Pollution Control Board had exclusive powers and stated that the Sub-divisional Magistrate was entitled to take action under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C.
- The court noted that the petitioner failed to produce the appreciation certificate from the Pollution Control Board, strengthening the Sub-divisional Magistrate’s decision to pass the final order.
- The court stated that the Sub-divisional Magistrate’s order was in accordance with the provisions of Sections 133 to 136 of the Cr.P.C.
- The court granted the petitioner six months’ time to obtain the appreciation certificate and directed the Pollution Control Board to consider the petitioner’s request for the issuance of the certificate.
Public nuisance
In simple terms, a public nuisance refers to any activity or condition that interferes with the rights and comfort of the general public or a significant number of people in a community. It can be an action, behaviour, or even a physical thing that causes inconvenience, annoyance, or harm to the people in a particular area.
Imagine you live in a neighbourhood, and there’s a house where the residents blare loud music, indulge in shouting, and create disturbance and noise that keeps everyone in the area awake and disturbs their peace. This constant disturbance caused by the party house would be considered a public nuisance because it negatively affects the quality of life of the people living in the nearby vicinity.
Similarly, a public nuisance could be a factory emitting noxious odours, a construction site blocking off sidewalks and causing inconvenience to pedestrians, or even a property that’s infested with pests and spreading diseases to neighbouring homes. and uncontrolled animals that roam freely, causing fear or disturbance to the public are some examples of public nuisance.
Maintaining public order and tranquillity is of paramount importance for any society. It is the government’s responsibility to maintain peace, law, and order in public places. To address situations of disorder, there are several provisions laid down in the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and for the maintenance of public order and tranquillity. These provisions will be highlighted in the subsequent sections, along with relevant case laws.
The landmark case of MC Mehta v. Union of India,(1985)
is an essential chapter in the history of the Indian Judiciary as, for the first time, the Supreme Court held a company completely responsible for the gas leakage, irrespective of its defence and claimed loss.
Before the MC Mehta vs Union of India case, the legal principle of Strict Liability established in Rylands v. Fletcher was in effect. Under this principle, owners or operators of industries were held liable for any inherently dangerous activities occurring on their property. However, the application of Strict Liability had certain defences and limited exceptions, such as the defence of the ‘Act of God.’
The Supreme Court recognised that strict liability had certain limitations and defences that could dilute its effectiveness in dealing with the environmental and public health consequences of hazardous industries. Therefore, to ensure greater protection of the environment and the rights of affected individuals, the Supreme Court adopted the principle of absolute liability that eliminates the various defences and exceptions available under strict liability, ensuring that there are no escape clauses.
Facts of the case
Shriram Foods & Fertilisers Industries, located in a heavily populated area in Delhi, emitted hazardous substances, causing harm to people living in the vicinity.
On December 4, 1985, a major leakage of oleum gas occurred from one of Shriram’s units, affecting the public, including workers and people outside the factory. An advocate also died due to inhalation of the gas.
Two days later, a minor leakage of oleum gas took place from a pipe joint.
In response to the incidents, the Delhi administration issued an order to Shriram to cease using harmful chemicals, remove them to a safer place, and appear before the District Magistrate to explain non-compliance.
The petitioner, M.C. Mehta, sought the closure of Shriram’s units due to their hazardous nature and the harm caused to the surrounding population.
Shriram filed an application seeking clarification on certain orders related to the reopening of its caustic chlorine plant.
The validity of multiple orders demanding the cessation of Shriram’s production was challenged in a separate writ petition filed by Shriram.
Issues involved
Whether Shriram should be allowed to restart its operation of manufacturing caustic chlorine and oleum, which is potentially a health hazard, and whether it would be a violation of Article 21?
What is the measure of liability of an enterprise engaged in the manufacturing of a hazardous or inherently dangerous substance which poses a potential risk to the health of the community at large?
Whether Shriram Industry is a ‘state’ and comes under the ambit of Article 12, so as to hold it liable under Article 21
Can compensation from Shriram Industries be claimed under Article 21?
Judgement
On February 17, 1986, a three-judge bench consisting of the Chief Justice of India, P.N. Bhagwati, along with Justices D.P. Mason and G.L. Oza addressed the reopening of Shriram’s caustic chlorine plant.
On March 10, 1986, the Supreme Court issued another order based on Shriram’s application for modification of certain orders.
On December 20, 1986, a five-judge Constitution Bench pronounced the final judgement. The judgement introduced the principle of “Absolute Liability,” stating that industries engaged in inherently dangerous activities would be held absolutely liable for any harm caused to the environment or people due to accidents.
The judgement emphasised the application of the absolute liability principle to industries like Shriram and directed the closure and relocation of the Shriram Caustic Chlorine and Sulphuric Acid Plant.
Types of nuisance (Section 268), IPC,1860
There are two types of nuisance viz., public nuisance and private nuisance. A public nuisance is dealt with under the provisions of of the IPC and a private nuisance is dealt with under the law of torts.
Public nuisance and private nuisance are two distinct legal concepts and they are addressed differently under the law.
Public nuisance
Public nuisance refers to activities, conditions, or behaviours that interfere with the rights and comfort of the general public or a significant number of people in a community. It is governed by the provisions of Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code,IPC in India, which defines the offence of public nuisance. Some examples of public nuisances are blocking public roads, polluting water bodies, or creating excessive noise that disturbs a large number of people. In such cases, the state or public authorities are responsible for taking legal action to control or eliminate the public nuisance.
Private Nuisance
Private Nuisance is a kind of nuisance in which a person’s use or enjoyment of his property is ruined by another. It may also injuriously affect the owner of the property by physically injuring his property or by affecting the enjoyment of the property. Unlike public nuisance, in private nuisance, an individual’s usage or enjoyment of property is ruined as distinguished from the public or society at large. The remedy for private nuisance under the law of torts is a civil action for damages or an injunction or both.
Elements which constitute private nuisance
The interference must be unreasonable or unlawful. It meant that the act should not be justifiable in the eyes of the law and should be an act which no reasonable man would do.
Such interference has to be with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some rights over the property, or it should be in connection with the property or physical discomfort.
There should be visible damage to the property or with the enjoyment of the property in order to constitute a private nuisance.
Defences available under Tort Law
Prescription
Prescription is a defence that allows a person to claim property rights based on long-term use and possession. If a nuisance has been openly and peacefully ongoing without any interruption for a period of twenty years, the defence of prescription may apply. Once this twenty-year period elapses, the nuisance becomes legalised as if it had been authorised from the beginning by the landowner. The essentials to establishing a person’s right by prescription are:
- Use or enjoyment of the property: The individual must have acquired the use or enjoyment of the property through lawful means, doing so openly and peacefully.
- Identity of the property enjoyed: The individual should be aware of the specific property they are enjoying without any confusion.
- Adverse effect on another person’s rights: The use or enjoyment of the property should adversely affect another person’s rights, causing a nuisance. Furthermore, if the person causing the nuisance goes unchallenged for at least twenty years, no legal action can be taken against them.
The essence of prescription is further explained in and
Statutory Authority
This defence comes into play when a statute permits a particular action or use of land. When a statute grants authority, all remedies, whether through legal action, indictment, or charges, are negated, provided that reasonable precautions have been taken.
There are two types of statutory authority:
- Absolute authority: When there is the absolute authority, the statute allows the action without requiring that it causes a nuisance or any form of harm.
- Conditional authority: In the case of conditional authority, the statute permits the action only if it can be performed without causing a nuisance or any other form of harm.
The above defences serve as legal justifications for the accused party in defending against a tort action.
In the case of , the defendant wrongfully obstructed a public navigable creek, preventing the plaintiff from transporting goods through the waterway. As a result, the plaintiff had to transport the goods over land, incurring additional transportation costs. It was determined that the defendant’s actions constituted a public nuisance, as the plaintiff successfully proved that they incurred losses distinct from other members of society. Thus, the plaintiff had a right to take legal action against the defendant
In the case of , Mr. Gur Prasad Saxena and another person filed a lawsuit against Mr. Radhey Shyam and five others. They sought a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from installing and operating a flour mill on the premises they occupied. Additionally, Gur Prasad Saxena filed another lawsuit against Radhey Shyam and the five others, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent them from operating an oil expeller plant.
The plaintiffs claimed that the noise generated by the mill was causing health problems for them. The court determined that the defendant’s operation of a flour mill in a residential area constituted a nuisance that severely impacted the plaintiff’s health. As a result, it was held that the defendant’s actions were causing harm to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction.
Let us apply our reasoning and understanding to know the difference in the concept of public nuisance and private nuisance in the case of the following scenarios:
Scenario 1. When flash mobs unexpectedly break into a song-and-dance sequence at airports, railway stations, shopping malls, public parks, etc., is it an act of breach of the peace?
Analysis: No, in such events, the administrators and the public are in mutual consent or agreement to enjoy this brief intermission of joy and laughter. In the light of the fact that our law permits peaceful expression of dissent in a democracy, therefore for expressions of joy and happiness, there can be no bar.
Scenario 2. Vivek had cheated Ajay in the past. In retaliation, Ajay hires a group of eunuchs (‘hijra’s / transgenders) to dance in front of Vivek’s house. Is this an act of private nuisance that Ankur has committed on Vivek’s property?
Analysis: Certainly, Ajay has committed an act of private nuisance on Vivek’s property. Now, it is up to Vivek to initiate legal action against Ajay or keep quiet for fear of public ridicule.
Note: Scenario 2 may sound hypothetical and that is true. However, if we see it in the context of the saying ‘objects in the mirror are closer than they appear‘, then perhaps such incidents could figure in the majority of unreported cases in our vast and populous country.
Unlawful assembly (Section 141), IPC, 1860
In legal terms, if a group of five or more people come together with a shared intention to commit an unlawful act, or to intimidate or provoke others to commit a crime, it is called an unlawful assembly under of the Indian Penal Code.
If members of this unlawful assembly use force or violence to achieve their common and shared objective, each member can be held accountable for the actions of any other member in pursuit of that objective. This means that if one person in the assembly commits a crime during the assembly, all members can be held responsible for that crime, even if they didn’t directly participate in it. This principle is established by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
To establish an offence of unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC, the following elements must be fulfilled:
- Five or more persons must be involved.
- They must assemble together.
- The assembly must have a common object.
- The common object must be one of the following:
4.1 to commit an offence.
4.2 to commit an act which is illegal by criminal force, or
4.3 to intimidate or provoke others to commit an offence.
It is important to note that the mere fact of an assembly of five or more people is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 141 IPC. The assembly must also possess a common object that falls within the scope of the section. If the assembly’s common object is lawful, it does not constitute an offence under this section, even if the assembly turns violent or unruly.
Case laws on Unlawful assembly
Shamsher Singh and others v. State of U.P (1993)
Facts of the case
- The involved five appellants charged with offences under , read with , and read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- The accused and the deceased belonged to the same village and had a history of enmity.
- The accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked the deceased and witnesses after they left a polling booth.
- The deceased suffered fatal gunshot wounds, and one of the witnesses was injured.
Issues Involved
- Whether the prosecution’s evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether all the accused could be considered members of the unlawful assembly.
Judgement
The trial court acquitted all the accused, citing inconsistencies in the eyewitness testimony and a lack of a clear motive.
- The High Court convicted five appellants based on credible eyewitness evidence and their involvement in the unlawful assembly and commission of crimes.
- The Supreme Court found the defence version unreliable and the prosecution’s evidence credible.
- However, the court had doubts regarding the membership of all the accused in the unlawful assembly.
- Two appellants were acquitted, while three others were convicted for their individual acts.
- The convictions under certain sections were set aside.
- Two appellants were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- One appellant was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment.
- The remaining two appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be set at liberty if not required in any other cases.
Rioting (Section 146), IPC
Rioting refers to a violent or tumultuous disturbance of public peace by an unlawful
assembly.
- deals with the punishment for rioting committed by an assembly of five or more persons.
- An assembly is considered unlawful if its common objective is to commit a criminal offence.
- Rioting involves acts of violence, property damage, assault, or any other unlawful activity that disrupts public peace.
- Each member of the unlawful assembly can be held liable for rioting under Section 146.
- The punishment for rioting may include imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
- If a member of the assembly causes grievous hurt or commits a more serious offence, the punishment can be more severe.
Case laws on Rioting
Garib Singh and others v. State of Punjab (1973)
Facts of the case
- In this , Garib Singh, Mohinder Singh, Bhagat Singh, Ram Singh, and Gurdial Singh were jointly charged and tried for rioting and offences committed during the riot.
- Garib Singh was separately charged for causing injury to Sarwan Singh with a Barchha and other offences.
- Mohinder Singh was separately charged for inflicting an incised wound on Chanan Singh with a spear and other offences.
- Bhagat Singh was separately charged for causing simple injuries with a lathi on Gurdev Singh and Ralla Singh, and other offences.
- Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh were alleged to have instigated the others by giving lalkaras (war cries) and were charged accordingly.
- The learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case to be shrouded in mystery but acquitted all the accused persons.
- The State of Punjab appealed the acquittal, and the High Court re-assessed the evidence.
- The High Court concluded that the injured eyewitnesses’ testimonies should be believed and convicted Garib Singh, Mohinder Singh, and Bhagat Singh under Section 34 IPC (Indian Penal Code).
- The credibility of the prosecution case: The trial court found the prosecution case to be shrouded in mystery and acquitted all the accused.
- Assessment of defence version: The defence put forward a version claiming a quarrel between two groups over the ownership of a tractor. The High Court had to assess the defence version and determine its credibility.
- Participation of Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh: The trial court acquitted Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh, as they were alleged to have only instigated the others.
- An appropriate standard of proof: The High Court had to apply the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to assess the evidence and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Issues involved
- Whether the prosecution’s evidence and testimonies were credible and reliable enough to prove the charges of rioting and other offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the defence version is plausible and raises reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused.
- Whether the actions of Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh can be considered sufficient to hold them criminally liable, even if they did not directly commit the acts constituting the charged offences.
- Whether the testimonies of injured eyewitnesses were reliable enough to establish the guilt of Garib Singh, Mohinder Singh, and Bhagat Singh under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the acquittal of Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh was on valid grounds and whether the court properly considered them in reaching its decision.
Judgement
- The High Court rejected the defence version as it found the evidence of the defence witnesses to be based on hearsay or attempts to prove an unnatural alleged agreement or compromise. The defence failed to explain the injuries sustained by the victims adequately.
- The High Court concluded that the injured eyewitnesses’ testimonies were credible and convicted Garib Singh, Mohinder Singh, and Bhagat Singh under Section 34 IPC for their respective offences. Ram Singh and Gurdial Singh were acquitted based on the delay in lodging the First Information Report and the absence of injuries attributed to them.
Affray (Section 159), IPC
Affray is an offence defined under . According to this section, when two or more persons engage in a fight in a public place, thereby disturbing the public peace, they are said to commit an affray.
The essential elements of the offence of affray under Section 159 IPC are as follows:
- Fight:
- There must be a physical altercation or fight between two or more individuals that involve the use of force, whether through physical blows, assaults, or any other form of physical aggression.
- Public Place:
- The fight must take place in a public place. A public place refers to any area that is accessible to and frequented by the public, such as streets, parks, shopping centres, or any other location where people can gather.
- Disturbance of Public Peace:
- The fighting must cause a disturbance to the public peace. It means that the fight should disrupt the tranquillity, order, or harmony prevailing in the public place, leading to an environment of unrest or disruption.
In cases of affray, the focus is on the act of fighting itself and its impact on public peace. The intention behind the fight or the motives of the individuals involved is not relevant to establish the offence of affray.
If the elements of a fight occurring in a public place and disturbing the public peace are established, individuals involved in the affray can be charged and held accountable under Section 159 IPC. Punishment for the offence of affray as defined under is imprisonment up to a period of one month or a fine of rupees one hundred or both.
Case law on Affray
State v. Meer Singh ( 2012)
Facts of the case
- In the case of (2012), on January 13, 2006, at around 10:15 pm, at O-I/107, Madangir, New Delhi, Meer Singh (the accused) and co-accused Rajinder @ Golu engaged in a fight, disturbing public peace.
- Both accused individuals were found fighting, resulting in injuries to each other.
- The police received a DD (Daily Diary) entry and arrived at the scene. Ct. Brij Bhushan and HC Jarnail Singh, police officers involved in the investigation, witnessed the fight and arrested both Meer Singh and Rajinder.
- The accused Meer Singh was charged under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for committing the offence of affray (fighting in a public place that disturbs public peace).
- The prosecution presented four witnesses: PW1 (Ct. Brij Bhushan), PW2 (Rajbir Singh), PW3 (SI Gian Chand), and PW4 (HC Jarnail Singh) to support their case.
- The defence argued that the case relied solely on the testimony of police witnesses and claimed that Meer Singh was actually the victim of the offence, having been attacked by three other individuals.
- The accused testified in his defence and stated that he was checking his vehicle when Ratan, Golu, and Sheru approached him, intoxicated and armed. A quarrel ensued when he refused to give them a ride.
Issues involved
- Whether the accused persons (Meer Singh and Rajinder) are guilty of the offence of affray under Section 159 IPC.
- Whether the prosecution’s case was supported by sufficient evidence.
- Whether the absence of independent witnesses affects the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Judgement
After considering the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, the court concluded that:
- The accused persons were found fighting in a public place, causing injuries to each other, which met the essential ingredients of the offence of affray under Section 159 IPC.
- The medical evidence supported the occurrence of the fight and the injuries sustained by the accused.
- Although there were no independent witnesses, the court relied on the testimony of the police witnesses, considering the general apathy of the public in getting involved in such incidents.
- The defence’s claim that Meer Singh was a victim and had lodged a complaint against the three individuals was not found sufficient to negate the charge against him.
- As a result, Meer Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 160 IPC (affray).
Civil liability
Civil liability means that if someone causes harm or damage to another person or their property because of a breach of peace, they may be legally held responsible for paying compensation.
In India, a breach of the peace is usually treated as a criminal offence. But in some cases, the court can also order the defendant who caused the damage to pay money to the plaintiff who is aggrieved on account of injury or damage to his property suffered as a direct or indirect consequence.
When someone wants to get monetary compensation as a fall out of an act committed in breach of peace., they can go to a civil court and file a lawsuit. If the Court orders payment of compensation, then the person or entity responsible for the same is liable to pay the compensation as ordered by the Court.
Case law
Dr. Ram Baj Singh v. Babulal (1981)
Facts of the case
- The plaintiff, Dr Ram Baj Singh, filed a seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant, Babulal.
- The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s operation of a brick-grinding machine emitted dust, which polluted the atmosphere and caused physical inconvenience to him and his patients.
- The trial court ruled in favour of the defendant, stating that the dust did not cause substantial injury or special damage.
Issues involved
- Whether the dust emitted by the defendant’s brick-grinding machine constituted a nuisance that caused particular damage to the plaintiff.
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from operating the machine.
Judgement
- The appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s ruling and accepted the testimony that the dust from the defendant’s machine entered the plaintiff’s chamber and caused visible coating on clothes.
- The court held that the plaintiff had established particular damage, indicating that the defendant’s actions constituted an actionable nuisance.
- The court granted the plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from operating the brick-grinding machine.
- The judgement emphasised that while property owners have the right to use their property, this right should not interfere with the rights of their neighbours.
Global peace conventions and their provisions on breach of peace
Global peace conventions refer to international agreements and treaties that aim to promote and maintain peace among nations. While they may not specify provisions on breaches of peace, they do provide the framework to promote peaceful relations among nations and prevent conflict.
United Nations Charter (1945)
The , adopted in 1945, sets the foundation for the United Nations and its principal organs. It outlines the roles and responsibilities of the five key organs, with one of them being the Security Council. The Security Council plays a crucial role in ensuring global peace and security. To address situations where peace is threatened, the Council has the authority to take different measures, such as diplomacy, economic sanctions, or even military intervention. Presently, many countries like Russia, North Korea, Sudan, Libya, Iran etc. are placed under the Security Council sanctions that touch upon various categories that may include restrictions on trade in goods and services and in engaging in commercial activities, financial actions like freezing of assets of terrorist organisations and of individuals on the radar of international watch agencies and travel bans on specific persons.
While the United Nations Charter may not specify provisions for breach of peace, it does provide the framework to promote peaceful relations among nations and prevent conflict. The Charter’s emphasis on diplomacy, collective security, and the peaceful resolution of disputes underlines its commitment to global peace. By establishing a forum for international cooperation and dialogue, the Charter encourages countries to work together and find peaceful solutions to potential conflicts. This collaborative approach serves as a means to address issues before they escalate into breaches of peace, thereby promoting stability and harmony among nations.
Geneva Conventions (1949)
The is an improvement over the earlier conventions. These conventions have been widely ratified by many countries all over the world. The Geneva Conventions provide protection for civilians, prisoners of war, and wounded or sick. Parties to the convention are obligated to ensure compliance with the provisions and violations can be prosecuted as war crimes.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966
is an international human rights treaty adopted in 1966. It enables people to enjoy a wide range of human rights including freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Penalties against violations include diplomatic pressure, condemnation or economic sanctions. India is a signatory to ICCPR. It is largely due to the initiatives and efforts of the ICCPR that today the death penalty stands abolished or significantly reduced in many countries. of the ICCPR states that the death penalty should only be applied for the most serious crimes and after a fair trial.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)
Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICC is an intergovernmental organisation with 123 member states. It is a tribunal that investigates and charges individuals in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression.
Member states are obliged under the ICC’s founding treaty called the ‘ ‘ as it was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome, India abstained from the motion to adopt the Statute at the conclusion of the conference for reasons related to the powers given to the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the non-inclusion of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in actions that would constitute a war crime.
The Rome Statute establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) that has jurisdiction over all individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crime against humanity. Breaches of peace involving such crimes can be investigated and prosecuted by ICC.
Arrest warrant against Putin and G20 summit in India
On 17 March, the Hague-based tribunal issued against Putin and his Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, for the alleged unlawful deportation of children amid the Ukraine war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin will still be able to attend the G20 Summit in New Delhi to be held in Sept this year as India is not part of the ICC.
In May 2023, South Africa announced that they would grant diplomatic immunity to Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials so that they could attend the 15th BRICS Summit in August 2023, despite the ICC arrest warrant.
Landmark Cases
One notable case law related to the Bosnian War is the case of (2016), tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,(ICTY). Radovan Karadžić, a former political leader of the Bosnian Serbs, was charged with multiple counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed during the Bosnian War.
The case relates to the Bosnian War that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995, following the breakup of Yugoslavia and it involved multiple ethnic and political groups. The main parties involved were Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims).
The Bosnian Serb forces, led by political leader Radovan Karadžić, sought to create a separate Serbian state within Bosnia and Herzegovina. They engaged in widespread campaigns of ethnic cleansing, targeting Bosniak and Croat populations, which involved forced displacement, mass killings, sexual violence, and other atrocities.
The war ended with the signing of the in 1995, which established a peace settlement and divided Bosnia and Herzegovina into two semi-autonomous entities: Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The case against Radovan Karadžić addressed various incidents, including the Srebrenica genocide, the shelling and sniping campaigns against civilians in Sarajevo, and the forced displacement of non-Serb populations. The ICTY found Radovan Karadžić guilty on several charges, including genocide, extermination, and persecution, and sentenced him to life imprisonment in 2016.
The prosecution and conviction of Radovan Karadžić by the ICTY exemplify the global effort to bring justice to those responsible for breaching the peace and committing grave human rights violations during the Bosnian War.
In 2009 and 2010, in the case of (2009) an arrest warrant was issued against Sudanese President, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir for genocide in Darfur and this was the first time the Court issues a warrant for a head of state. Interestingly, in 2015, ahead of the then-Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s visit to New Delhi for the .
In the case of The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (2016), the Islamic militant, was sentenced to nine years of prison after pleading guilty to war crimes which included the destruction of religious historic monuments in Mali.
Breach of peace : a global perspective
Having navigated through the labyrinth of laws governing acts committed in the breach of peace within our land, we can now shift our focus beyond the sovereign limits of India. As we know, the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war is fiercely opposed by the U.S. and its allies, and it is impacting oil prices worldwide. The possibility of escalation in the conflict is causing anxiety among world leaders. The support rendered to Ukraine by the U.S. and its allies is based on their adherence to international law as signatories to treaties on international cooperation, human rights, and military aggression. The subject of International Law is constantly evolving and expanding in scope to the extent that it has permeated the realm of culture and diversity.
It is essential to consider what happens when a criminal commits a crime in Delhi and is eventually caught in Mumbai. This becomes possible through the framework of inter-state police cooperation. Expanding upon the same analogy, let us delve into the extradition of a dreaded terrorist who commits an act of terrorism within India and seeks refuge in a foreign country such as the UK, USA, or any other participating nation. Remarkably, their extradition back to India is feasible due to the existence of international law, to which these countries are signatories.
Interpol, the , plays a commendable role in combating transnational crime. Its Red Notices frequently make headlines, and it has become a prominent fixture in popular culture. Founded in 1923, Interpol serves as a platform for member countries to exchange information and coordinate efforts against transnational criminal activities.
Interpol’s primary mission is to promote global security and combat various forms of organised crime, including terrorism, cybercrime, human trafficking, drug trafficking, and financial crimes. Through its network of member countries, Interpol enables law enforcement agencies to collaborate, coordinate investigations, and apprehend criminals who operate across borders.
Notable Achievements: Interpol
The capture of Zhenli Ye Gon: Interpol’s Red Notice led to the of Ye Gon, a Chinese-Mexican businessman involved in drug trafficking. This operation seized over $205 million in cash, one of the largest amounts ever confiscated.
The arrest of Radovan Karadzic: Interpol facilitated the arrest of , a former president indicted for crimes against humanity and genocide during the Bosnian War.
: In what is the largest coordinated international law enforcement effort targeting an online cyber-criminal forum, the FBI and its partners from 20 countries dismantled a forum known as Darkode.
: Interpol’s Operation Pandora successfully recovered over 3,500 stolen archaeological artefacts and artworks, combating art theft and preserving cultural heritage.
The term ‘International law’ was first used by the legal theorist, ‘Jeremy Bentham’ ( 1748- 1832 ) in 1780. A definition of International law by J.L. Briely appears most relevant to contemporary times, “The law of nations of international law may be defined as the body of rules and principle of action, which are binding upon civilized states in their relation with one another”.
We must recognise that international law plays a vital role in facilitating international travel, trade by sea or air, and human migration from one country to another. It governs how the world addresses situations when aeroplanes enter the airspace of foreign nations or when cargo ships navigate through international waters. These interactions highlight the significant influence of international law in enabling and regulating these global activities and more importantly, in addressing issues of international crime.
Transnational cooperation and extradition: enforcing international law
Transnational organised crime is a big problem that affects the safety of people all around the world. It involves illegal activities like smuggling drugs, hiding money obtained illegally, using violence to get what they want, and trafficking women and children. This kind of crime can destabilise countries and make it harder for them to keep their citizens safe.
To fight against transnational organised crime, countries need to work together. The United Nations has created a special committee to develop a worldwide agreement to address this issue. Experts are discussing ways to improve cooperation between countries when it comes to sharing legal assistance and extraditing criminals.
One challenge is figuring out if a crime is illegal in both the requesting and requested countries, which is also known as the concept of . This can be a complicated and time-consuming process. To make it easier, some experts suggest allowing witnesses and others involved in a case to give their statements through video calls or other modern communication methods.
Another deterrent is the double jeopardy , which debars punishment for the same crime twice. David Headley, an American terrorist who planned the Mumbai attacks on November 26, 2008, has already been imprisoned by US courts for 35 years for killing six Americans. However, he has not yet been tried in Indian courts for the deaths of almost 174 Indian nationals including 26 foreign nationals in the .
Another challenge is when a country refuses to extradite a criminal, especially if the crime is considered political. This can make it harder to bring criminals to justice and fight against transnational organised crime.
In conclusion, transnational organised crime is a serious problem that requires cooperation between countries. Efforts are being made at the international and regional levels to fight against this crime, but challenges related to legal cooperation and protecting rights need to be addressed.
The peculiar case of Julian Assange, asylum and extradition
Julian Assange is an Australian journalist and the founder of WikiLeaks, an international organisation known for publishing classified information from anonymous sources. The case of Julian Assange raises various legal and ethical questions, particularly in the context of international law.
Assange gained international attention in 2010 when WikiLeaks released a significant amount of classified material, causing diplomatic and political repercussions for numerous governments. The methods used by WikiLeaks to obtain and disseminate classified information raise questions about the boundaries of legal and ethical conduct in the digital age.
From an international law perspective, there are several aspects to consider:
Asylum
In 2012, Assange sought asylum in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, as he feared extradition to the United States, where he faced potential criminal charges related to his WikiLeaks activities. Ecuador granted him asylum, claiming that he could face political persecution if extradited.
Diplomatic Asylum and Diplomatic Relations
The UK government considered Assange’s presence in the Ecuadorian Embassy a violation of their obligations under international law. The situation raised questions about the boundaries and limitations of diplomatic asylum and the importance of maintaining diplomatic relations between countries.
Extradition
After spending seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange was arrested by British authorities in April 2019. The arrest was based on an extradition request from the United States, where he faced charges under the Espionage Act for the unauthorised disclosure of classified information. The extradition process involved legal arguments related to human rights, freedom of speech, and the nature of the charges against him.
Case laws
Landmark judgements shed light on important legal principles and provide guidelines on breaches of the peace, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the rights and responsibilities of individuals and law enforcement agencies in maintaining public order in India.
Ram Manohar lohia v. State of Bihar, (1966)
In this , it was held that the right to assemble peacefully without arms is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution. The judgement emphasised that peaceful protests are essential for a vibrant democracy so any restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly should be reasonable.
Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
In this while an order promulgating was in force for a period of 15 days, the petitioner took it as an invasion of the fundamental rights of the citizens under Article 19(1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution and held a meeting outside the specified areas and exhorted the workers to take out processions in the notified areas in defiance of said the order. Having failed to get relief, the petitioner moved the High Court of Maharashtra under challenging the constitutional validity of Section 144 of the Code. The Court in its judgement held that the State has the power to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully in order to maintain public order.
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011)
In this , the Supreme Court clarified that mere membership of a banned organisation does not automatically make the person criminal or liable for prosecution for breach of peace. To establish liability for breach of peace, the court held that there should be clear evidence of the participation of the individual in an unlawful assembly or act of incitement to violence.
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)
In this , the issue at stake was the divergence of opinions between different benches of the court with regard to the ambit and scope of and in particular with regard to the admissibility of the evidence collected by an investigating officer during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Court held that it is a mandatory requirement of Section 50 that when an officer duly authorised under is about to search a person, he must inform him of his right under sub-section (1) thereof being taken to the nearest notified officer or nearest Magistrate for making the search. In this case, the Court held that there have been violations of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; hence, the accused can not be held guilty under the NDPS Act.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
The judgement in this established that criticism of the Government or the expression of unpopular views unless accompanied by incitement to violence or an attempt to create public disturbance does not constitute sedition or breach of peace.
Conclusion
Shifting our focus from the legal aspects, it is important to acknowledge that the pursuit of inner peace is a universal aspiration shared by all individuals. Expressions like “comfort zone,” “my own space,” or “leave me alone” commonly used in everyday language reflect this desire. Many people seek serenity by visiting tranquil hill stations, engaging in yoga retreats, and exploring various forms of meditation and activities to cultivate awareness and tranquillity.
However, preserving peace extends beyond the internal struggle for individual tranquillity. There is an equally significant challenge in maintaining peace in the external world, encompassing our neighbourhoods, cities, states, and countries. As we have examined the legalities surrounding the breach of peace in this blog, we have realised the profound implications of global peace and its impact on our survival.
Consider the plight of Indian students who were studying in Ukraine, a relatively peaceful country, but were abruptly displaced due to the Russian invasion. These students had to seek refuge in safer zones before eventually being evacuated back to India. The scale of this operation, named ‘Operation Ganga’ by the Government of India, was staggering, with over 16,000 students requiring assistance. The financial burden borne by the parents, emotional traumas, lost opportunities, setbacks to careers, and anxieties about the future make the situation even more daunting.
From sporadic Incidents of Indian students being subjected to racial abuse in countries like Australia, New Zealand, UK, USA, it is now almost a pattern that can be seen on account of the regularity of such occurrences. In fact, informed parents should take into account the prevailing geo-political situation in the country where their child desires to study.
Think about the plight of citizens who have been victims of state oppression and dictatorships. Throughout this blog, we have encountered examples of strict actions taken by international organisations like the International Criminal Court to hold political leaders accountable for their crimes and impose sanctions on countries that defy international norms. Countries like North Korea, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Ukraine, Pakistan, and many others have become hotspots from where violence emanates, affecting global peace.
These instances highlight the urgency and importance of strengthening the global interconnectedness and interdependence of our modern world so as to tackle such challenges head-on.They emphasise that individual well-being and peace are intricately linked to the broader concept of global peace. In an era where events in one part of the world can have far-reaching consequences across borders, it is crucial that we recognise the importance of fostering peace within ourselves, our communities, our nations, and the world at large.
With our understanding of the intricacies of the legalities surrounding the breach of peace, it is essential to reflect upon the timeless words of Mahatma Gandhi, “In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” These profound words hold significant relevance within the context of a breach of peace, reminding us that true strength lies not in acts of violence, chaos, or destruction but in nurturing a society that embraces the principles of harmony and peaceful coexistence.
It is vital to acknowledge that breaching the peace not only disrupts immediate tranquillity but also carries legal consequences. In the realm of law, acts that incite violence, create disorder, or cause extensive damage to public and private property are considered offences against the social order.
However, it is crucial to differentiate between peaceful expression of dissent and actions that pose no threat to public safety and order. In a society that values freedom of speech and diverse opinions, unpopular views, unless accompanied by incitement to violence or an attempt to create a public disturbance, do not constitute sedition or breach of peace.
In conclusion, let us embrace Gandhi’s wisdom and recognize the significance of peaceful means in addressing social conflicts. By upholding the principles of harmony and peaceful coexistence, we can collectively strive to create a world where the peaceful resolution of conflicts prevails, promoting stability and a sense of security for all.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is a breach of peace?
Breach of peace refers to actions that threaten to disrupt public order, disturb public peace or create an atmosphere of violence and unrest in society.
Is breach of peace a criminal offence?
Yes, it is a criminal offence with a punishment of a maximum of two years or a fine or both.
Can a breach of peace occur in private settings or is it applicable for acts committed in public places only?
Breach of peace can happen in private settings also. For example, a group of men shouting loudly and physically fighting with each other inside their apartment, or such violent behaviour at the workplace or gym is cause for breach of the peace as such actions disturb the prevailing peace and order in the given context.
Give an example of a breach of peace by a country as pointed out by various global bodies?
Syria is one such country that has been singled out for gross violations by various global bodies including the United Nations and its affiliated organisations. The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has been monitoring and reporting on human rights violations in Syria. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic has in its report detailed breaches of the peace, chemical weapons use and attacking civilians and damaging civilian infrastructure.
References
- .
- .
Students of regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on and subscribe to our channel for more amazing legal content.
The post appeared first on .