The Gujarat High Court has directed the state government to respond to a plea challenging the Palanpur Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s (SDM) refusal to grant permission for a peaceful protest against the Waqf Amendment Act and the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The court has sought the state’s stand on the matter while questioning the urgency of the protest.
Plea Challenges Denial of Protest Permission
The petition was filed by Sajidbhai Muhammedbhai Makrani, the convener of the Rashtriya Muslim Adhikar Manch, seeking permission for a "peaceful protest and silent rally" on April 15. The plea requests the court to quash the SDM’s order denying permission and to allow the protest to proceed. Additionally, it seeks interim permission for the rally while the petition is pending.
Read also:- Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2025: Key Changes and Major Debates in Lok Sabha
Initially, the protest was planned for April 7 but was postponed to April 15 due to the delay in receiving permission. The Waqf Amendment Bill, which was passed and came into effect on April 8, is now an Act, prompting the protest.
Court Questions Urgency of Protest
During the hearing, Justice Aniruddha P. Mayee questioned the urgency of holding the protest, stating, "That can be rescheduled again. It is only a protest which you are trying to show. So that can be rescheduled. What is the urgency?... Now it is an Act."
Read Also:- Congress MP Moves Supreme Court Against Waqf Amendment Bill 2025, Alleging Bias Against Muslim Community
The petitioner’s counsel argued that organizing a peaceful protest is a fundamental right. However, the court responded, "Nobody is saying no. But what is the urgency in that?"
Concerns Over Law and Order
The court raised concerns about potential law and order issues, asking if the organizers could guarantee a violence-free protest. Justice Mayee remarked, "Problem is not that. Problem is, does the organizer undertake that there will be no violence or something like that?... Whoever has made the application, can they guarantee there will be no law and order situation?"
Read Also:- Delhi MLA Amanatullah Khan Challenges Waqf Amendment Bill in SC, Citing Violation of Muslim Rights
The petitioner’s counsel countered that the police had not provided any specific reasons for their apprehension of unrest.
The state’s counsel argued that the local law enforcement’s "subjective satisfaction" must be considered before granting permission. The court has asked the government to clarify its position and adjourned the matter to April 21.
Case title: SAJIDBHAI MUHAMMEDBHAI MAKRANI v/s SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PALANPUR and others
