HC quashes Rayagada admn order curbing entry of doc

Time of India

4 days ago

Cuttack: Orissa high court on Friday quashed the Rayagada collector's June 4 order prohibiting medical practitioner and activist Dr Randall Sequeira from entering the district.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Justice S K Panigrahi held that while law and order concerns are valid, blanket prohibitions infringe upon constitutional rights and must be balanced with reasonable restrictions.
The ban order, which also included noted activist
and 22 others, was imposed for two months ahead of a planned protest against proposed bauxite mining at Sijimali hills. Authorities had cited potential disruptions to public peace and administrative functioning for justifying the order.
Justice Panigrahi emphasised, "In a constitutional democracy, the govt should focus on dialogue and management rather than exclusion."
He reaffirmed that protest rights under Article 19 must be preserved, and restrictions should aim at regulation — not denial.
The court took note of the context in which the ban was issued — during Rath Yatra festivities, when police resources were stretched thin. However, it stated that those constraints were temporary and no longer justified continuing restrictions.
Sequeira, a Bhawanipatna-based physician known for providing free medical care to tribal communities, challenged the order, arguing that it hindered his ability to deliver essential services. His counsel, advocate Afraaz Suhail, contended that the ban was disproportionate and unconstitutional.
The court agreed, allowing Sequeira to re-enter Rayagada immediately, and issued operational guidelines for future protests.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
These include written notice to district authorities, coordination with police, designated protest locations, and lawful restrictions on timing, sound and crowd management.
Justice Panigrahi clarified these conditions are specific to the current case and do not override general constitutional protections. He warned that any violation by protesters would invite legal action, while any arbitrary denial of protest rights by the state would face judicial scrutiny.
Cuttack: Orissa high court on Friday quashed the Rayagada collector's June 4 order prohibiting medical practitioner and activist Dr Randall Sequeira from entering the district.
Justice S K Panigrahi held that while law and order concerns are valid, blanket prohibitions infringe upon constitutional rights and must be balanced with reasonable restrictions.
The ban order, which also included noted activist Medha Patkar and 22 others, was imposed for two months ahead of a planned protest against proposed bauxite mining at Sijimali hills.
Authorities had cited potential disruptions to public peace and administrative functioning for justifying the order.
Justice Panigrahi emphasised, "In a constitutional democracy, the govt should focus on dialogue and management rather than exclusion."
He reaffirmed that protest rights under Article 19 must be preserved, and restrictions should aim at regulation — not denial.
The court took note of the context in which the ban was issued — during Rath Yatra festivities, when police resources were stretched thin.
However, it stated that those constraints were temporary and no longer justified continuing restrictions.
Sequeira, a Bhawanipatna-based physician known for providing free medical care to tribal communities, challenged the order, arguing that it hindered his ability to deliver essential services. His counsel, advocate Afraaz Suhail, contended that the ban was disproportionate and unconstitutional.
The court agreed, allowing Sequeira to re-enter Rayagada immediately, and issued operational guidelines for future protests.
These include written notice to district authorities, coordination with police, designated protest locations, and lawful restrictions on timing, sound and crowd management.
Justice Panigrahi clarified these conditions are specific to the current case and do not override general constitutional protections. He warned that any violation by protesters would invite legal action, while any arbitrary denial of protest rights by the state would face judicial scrutiny.