Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India
Quick Reply: This is not an RTI-Act ruling — it is the Jantar Mantar protest case. MKSS, the Rajasthan movement that won India its right-to-information law, challenged Delhi Police's rolling Section 144 CrPC orders that had squeezed public assembly at Jantar Mantar. The Court balanced Article 19(1)(a) and (b) with public order, holding protest lawful but managing where and how. It belongs in this database because of who the petitioner is — and because the right to know and the right to speak grow from the same Article 19(1)(a) root.
Supreme Court of India · 2018-07-23 · (2018) 17 SCC 324 · ★ Landmark
The movement that made transparency a statute went to court for the older right — to gather and be heard.
Case details
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
|---|---|
| Decided | 2018-07-23 |
| Citation | (2018) 17 SCC 324 |
| Bench | A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan |
| Petitioner | Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan & Anr. |
| Respondent | Union of India |
| RTI Act sections | — (Article 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b); Section 144 CrPC) |
| Outcome | Directions issued; protests regulated, not banned |
What actually happened
- Protesters — farmers, ex-servicemen, the MKSS — had gathered at Jantar Mantar, Delhi's designated protest ground; Delhi Police had kept Section 144 CrPC orders in near-perpetual force around it.
- MKSS petitioned: a prohibitory order that never ends converts the right to assemble into an illusion.
- The Court (Sikri and Ashok Bhushan JJ.) laid down the balance: Article 19(1)(a) and (b) protect speech and assembly, including in the capital's sight and sound; the state may regulate time, place and manner for public order — but cannot extinguish the right.
Outcome
Directions issued regulating protests at Jantar Mantar (designated areas, time limits, cleanliness and noise norms); the right to protest itself was affirmed, not abolished.
Why an RTI database carries it
- The petitioner is the reason the RTI Act exists: MKSS's Jan Sunwais (public hearings on muster rolls), the Beawar dharna of 1996 and the 2004-05 national campaign produced the 2005 Act. This page keeps the corpus honest about what its own movement later argued in court.
- The constitutional root is shared: *State of U.P. v. Raj Narain* (1975) read the right to know out of Article 19(1)(a); this judgment works the same clause for assembly. Same root, two branches.
- Practice note: if you are citing a “Section 4 continuing duty” proposition, the authority line runs through *RBI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry* and the suo motu disclosure cases — not through this case.
Ratio decidendi
Freedom of speech and assembly under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) extends to collective public protest; the state may impose reasonable time-place-manner restrictions for public order, but may not make protest impossible through perpetually renewed prohibitory orders.
Keywords
Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b), right to protest, Section 144 CrPC, Jantar Mantar, MKSS
Similar cases in the corpus
- Land records & mutation — Allahabad HC (HC-UP 2017)
- Corporator funds utilisation — Maharashtra SIC (SIC-MH 2019)
- §2(h) applied to grant-receiving NGO (SC 2014)
- Ration card / PDS records — Kerala SIC (SIC-KL 2020)
Related
Editorial summary, not a certified report. The ratio here is an editorial compression. Before citing this ruling in a PIO order, FAA speaking order, or any appellate filing, verify against the full reported decision. RTI Wiki is not a legal service.
Editorial summary · CORRECTED 27 August 2026: the earlier text described this as a Section 4 proactive-disclosure ruling; verified against indiankanoon.org/doc/80616728, it is the Jantar Mantar right-to-protest case.