Regarding Facial Coverings PDF

**[Regarding Facial Coverings ]** - **Anti-mask** or **anti-masking laws** are legislative or penal initiatives prohibiting the concealment of one\'s face in public. Anti-mask laws vary widely between jurisdictions in their intent, scope, and penalties. **Laws in other countries*...

**[Regarding Facial Coverings ]** - **Anti-mask** or **anti-masking laws** are legislative or penal initiatives prohibiting the concealment of one\'s face in public. Anti-mask laws vary widely between jurisdictions in their intent, scope, and penalties. **Laws in other countries** ** Canada:**In 2013, Canada passed a law (Bill C-309) that bans wearing masks during riots or illegal gatherings. **Belgium**: A law passed in Belgium in 2011 makes it illegal to hide your face in public in a way that makes you unrecognisable. Breaking this law can result in a fine or up to seven days in jail. In 2017, the European Court of Human Rights supported this ban after two Muslim women challenged it. 1\. **R. v. Krymowski (2005) - Canada** Facts: This case revolved around the wearing of face coverings during protests, specifically linked to issues of hate speech and incitement rather than a direct mask ban. In 2017, Quebec passed Bill 62, which required individuals to show their faces when receiving public services. This law became controversial as it was seen as both a matter of public safety and a challenge to religious freedom and personal autonomy. Judgment: Although the courts did not rule directly on face coverings in the *R. v. Krymowski* case, Quebec's Bill 62 was upheld. The law aimed to ensure transparency and accountability when interacting with public services. The law was framed as necessary for promoting public safety and communication in government settings. It was also tied to the province's secular values, seeking to ensure that individuals were identifiable during public transactions. 2\. **State v. Miller (1990) - United States** Facts: In Georgia, an anti-mask law was enacted to combat the Ku Klux Klan's use of hoods to conceal identities during violent acts. The defendant, Miller, was charged under this law, which banned wearing masks or hoods in public places. Miller argued that the law infringed upon his First Amendment rights (freedom of expression). Judgment: The Georgia Supreme Court upheld the anti-mask law, ruling that the state had the constitutional right to ban masks at public gatherings to prevent intimidation, violence, and unlawful behaviour. The Court emphasised that the law was not meant to restrict free speech but to ensure public safety and protect citizens from the threats posed by individuals who could conceal their identities. 3\. **Hong Kong Protests and Face Mask Ban (2019-2020)** Facts: Amid the large-scale anti-government protests in Hong Kong in 2019-2020, the Hong Kong government invoked the Emergency Regulations Ordinance to prohibit the wearing of face masks during public demonstrations. The ban was introduced to reduce violence and prevent protesters from concealing their identities, which was seen as a challenge to law enforcement and public safety. Judgment: The Hong Kong Court of Appeal upheld the face mask ban, finding that it was a necessary measure to preserve public order and safety. The Court acknowledged the government's concern that face masks made it difficult for the police to identify those involved in violent acts, which posed a risk to public order. 4\. **Belgium - Face Covering Ban** Facts: Belgium passed a law in 2011 banning the wearing of face coverings in public spaces. This law was part of broader concerns about the integration of Muslim communities and was also tied to Belgium's secular and democratic values. The law prohibited full-face coverings such as the burqa and niqab in public spaces. A woman who wore the niqab challenged the law, claiming it violated her freedom of religion and personal autonomy. Judgment: The Belgian Constitutional Court upheld the face covering ban, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) later supported Belgium's decision. It found that the law was a legitimate restriction on individual freedoms because it sought to promote transparency, public security, and social integration. The ECHR concluded that the ban was proportionate to the state's goals and did not unduly infringe on the right to religious expression. 5\. **G v. France (2021) - European Court of Human Rights** Facts: A case involving a ban on wearing face veils in public schools, which was challenged by a woman who believed that the ban violated her religious rights. This case was similar to *S.A.S. v. France*, focusing on a broader ban on face coverings in the context of public schools and educational settings. Judgment: The ECHR upheld the French government's decision, ruling that the ban did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court justified the restriction by referencing public safety and the need to ensure that individuals could be clearly identified in public spaces, particularly in educational environments. 6\. **Switzerland - Full-Face Veil Ban (2021)** Facts: In 2021, Switzerland passed a referendum-based law prohibiting the wearing of full-face veils in public. This ban affected veils like the niqab and burqa, as well as other face coverings. The law was implemented with the stated goal of promoting gender equality, public safety, and social cohesion. Judgment: Swiss courts supported the referendum and upheld the ban, emphasising the importance of security, integration, and social cohesion. The government argued that face coverings hindered communication and identification in public spaces, which were essential for public safety. 7\. **Association for Protection of Civil Rights v. Union of India (2005)** Facts: In this case, the issue arose with regard to a specific ban on wearing masks and face coverings during protests, which was imposed by the government to ensure transparency and avoid any identity-related concerns during civil protests. The petitioners, including rights organisations, challenged such restrictions, arguing that they infringed upon their right to protest and express dissent. Judgment: The Supreme Court of India did not directly address the wearing of face coverings in protests but acknowledged the state's responsibility to regulate the public gatherings for ensuring law and order. The Court highlighted that while the right to protest is protected, it can be regulated by the state to prevent unlawful activities, which can include restrictions on anonymity. 8\. **The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shabir Ahmad Shah (2018)** Facts: This case dealt with a series of stone-pelting incidents in Jammu and Kashmir, where protestors had covered their faces to avoid identification. The state imposed restrictions on face coverings, particularly for individuals involved in unlawful activities such as stone-pelting, to ensure that those responsible could be identified. Judgment: The Jammu and Kashmir High Court supported the government's actions, arguing that face coverings in situations like protests and unlawful activities hinder the identification of individuals involved in criminal behaviour. The Court upheld the state's right to restrict face coverings as a preventive measure against violence and unlawful protests. **[Regarding Reasonable Restrictions by Government]** 1. **Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)** It guarantees the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. It protects individuals from arbitrary interference by public authorities. But, this right is **not absolute** and may be subject to **restrictions**, such as for national security, public safety, or the prevention of crime, as long as these restrictions are necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. 2. **Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)** deals with the punishment for making, publishing, or circulating statements that incite or promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, or regional groups or castes. It aims to prevent speech or actions that could disturb public peace and harmony. The offence under this section is punishable with imprisonment for up to three years or a fine, or both. 3. **Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)** deals with the punishment for engaging in unlawful assembly or gathering, which could disrupt public peace or order. It criminalises individuals who, by force or intimidation, try to prevent authorities from taking action. A person found guilty can be punished with imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both. This section is frequently invoked to prevent potential riots or disturbances by prohibiting gatherings that could escalate into violence. 4. **Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)** defines the offence of sedition. It punishes any person who, by words, signs, or visible representation, incites hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the government. The offence can lead to life imprisonment or up to three years of imprisonment with a fine. This law aims to maintain public order and protect the integrity of the state but has been a subject of debate due to concerns over misuse and freedom of speech. 5. **N.B. Khare vs The State Of Delhi on 26 May, 1950** Facts: In *NB Khare vs State of Delhi*, law enforcement conducted a search without following the required legal procedures, leading to the seizure of certain evidence against NB Khare. Khare argued that since the search was unauthorised, the evidence gathered should be deemed inadmissible, as it violated procedural safeguards and his right to privacy. Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that even though the evidence was obtained through an unlawful search, it could still be admitted if it was relevant to the case. It reasoned that procedural violations in gathering evidence should not obstruct the administration of justice, as long as the evidence itself is reliable and material to determining the truth. 6. **Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018** Facts: In *Justice K S Puttaswamy & Anr. vs Union of India*, retired Justice K S Puttaswamy challenged the Indian government's Aadhaar program, arguing that it infringed upon citizens' right to privacy by mandating the collection of personal data. This case questioned whether the Constitution guaranteed a fundamental right to privacy, especially concerning state-mandated data collection. Judgment: The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment affirming the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. While acknowledging this right, the Court also noted that it is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions when justified by public interest, security, or welfare. 7. **Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd vs The Union Of India 8 January, 1958** Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the imposed restrictions on newspapers were unconstitutional as they interfered with the freedom of the press, which is an essential part of freedom of speech and expression. The Court stated that any restriction on this freedom must be reasonable and justified by compelling state interest. 8. ***State of Gujarat vs Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat* (2005)** Facts: The Supreme Court dealt with a case involving the banning of a religious organisation, the Kureshi community, due to their involvement in illegal activities like animal slaughter in violation of existing laws. The question was whether the state could impose such a ban under the constitutional framework. Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the ban, reasoning that the state had the authority to prohibit activities that posed a threat to public health and order. The Court ruled that such a ban was a reasonable restriction on the right to form associations under Article 19(1)(c), as it served to protect the community and prevent illegal activities. 9. ***Gobind vs State of Madhya Pradesh* (1975)** Facts: The petitioner challenged a law that allowed the police to conduct surveillance on individuals without a warrant, arguing that it violated his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Gobind was being surveilled based on suspicion of criminal activities, and he contended that this was an unjustified infringement on his privacy. Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the law, stating that the right to privacy is not an absolute right and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions for the sake of public interest, such as preventing crime and maintaining national security. The Court noted that surveillance, when done with proper safeguards and for legitimate purposes, does not violate the Constitution. Viewpoint: The right to privacy recognised in Gobind was expanded in Puttaswamy (2017), but Gobind still played an essential role in recognising that the right to privacy, while fundamental, is subject to reasonable restrictions.  10. ***State of Maharashtra vs Bharat Shantilal Shah and Ors.* (2004)** Facts: The petitioners were involved in a case related to a violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Act, arguing that the restrictions imposed by the law were excessive and violated their fundamental rights, particularly the right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g). Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the provisions of FERA and ruled that while Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to trade, it is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court emphasised that such restrictions are valid if they are made in the interest of the economic stability of the nation, particularly in cases involving foreign exchange regulations. The Court concluded that the restrictions under FERA were reasonable and necessary to maintain national financial stability and prevent economic crimes. 11. ***People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) vs Union of India* (1997)** Facts: The case dealt with the constitutionality of telephone tapping by the government. PUCL challenged the government's practice of intercepting telephone communications without proper legal safeguards, arguing that it violated citizens' right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that while the right to privacy is fundamental, it is not absolute. The Court held that telephone tapping could be justified only under specific conditions, such as national security or public order, and must be authorised by a competent authority. The Court also emphasised that any interception should be done in accordance with the law and must follow strict procedures to avoid abuse. Viewpoint: Even though Maneka Gandhi broadened the scope of personal liberty, Gopalan shows how laws can impose reasonable restrictions on freedoms like personal liberty under certain circumstances, such as national security, public order, or public health. 8\. ***Amish Devgan vs Union of India* (2020)** Facts: journalist Amish Devgan was booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for making controversial remarks on his television show that allegedly hurt religious sentiments. Devgan filed a petition, arguing that the FIR filed against him violated his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, contending that his comments were made in good faith. Judgment: The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Union of India and dismissed the plea for quashing the FIR. The Court emphasised that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and can be restricted to maintain public order, prevent incitement to violence, or protect the reputation of individuals. The Court observed that comments that incite hate or disturb public order could be subject to legal action. 9\. ***A.K. Gopalan vs State of Madras* (1950)** Facts: A.K. Gopalan, a political activist, was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged his detention on the grounds that it violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, claiming that the procedure for detention was not followed properly and that his detention was arbitrary. Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld Gopalan's detention, ruling that the Preventive Detention Act was valid under the Constitution. The Court interpreted Article 21 as providing protection against arbitrary deprivation of life or personal liberty but did not find the detention to be in violation. The Court held that the right to personal liberty could be limited under certain laws like preventive detention, as long as the legal procedure was followed. Viewpoint: Even though Maneka Gandhi broadened the scope of personal liberty, Gopalan shows how laws can impose reasonable restrictions on freedoms like personal liberty under certain circumstances, such as national security, public order, or public health. 10\. **Madhu Limaye vs. SDM, Monghyr (1971)** **AIR 1971 SC 2486** Facts:Madhu Limaye, a political leader, was detained under preventive detention laws by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of Monghyr, Bihar, for allegedly acting against public order. Limaye challenged the detention, claiming that it violated his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, arguing that the detention was arbitrary and unlawful. Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the validity of preventive detention laws, stating that restrictions on personal liberty under these laws were permissible if they were based on genuine and material grounds. However, the Court also emphasised that such detention must follow due process and that the detention should be reasonable. It ruled that preventive detention could be challenged if the grounds were found to be vague, insufficient, or applied in bad faith. The Court clarified that restrictions under preventive detention must be proportional to the threat posed to public order. 11\. **D. Anantha Prabhu vs. District Collector, Ernakulam (2002) AIR 1975 ker.117** Facts:D. Anantha Prabhu, a petitioner, challenged the order of the District Collector, Ernakulam, which imposed restrictions on his right to move freely under Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution. The District Collector had imposed a ban on the petitioner's movement based on the grounds of public safety, invoking provisions of the Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. Prabhu argued that his freedom of movement was unduly restricted without any valid reason and that it violated his constitutional rights. Judgment:The Kerala High Court ruled in favour of D. Anantha Prabhu, stating that the restriction on an individual's right to movement must be reasonable and proportional to the purpose of the law invoked. The Court held that such restrictions can only be imposed if there is clear evidence of a threat to public order. The Court emphasised that reasonable restrictions under Article 19(5) must be based on justifiable grounds and cannot be invoked arbitrarily. It also stressed the importance of balancing individual freedoms with public safety, stating that any restriction should be based on compelling reasons. 12\. **V.K. Javali vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387** Facts:V.K. Javali, the petitioner, challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions under the Mysore Police Act. These provisions allowed for the detention of individuals for preventive reasons without a formal trial. The petitioner was detained under these provisions, and he contended that his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was violated. He argued that the law was being applied in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner, depriving him of his basic freedoms without adequate justification. Judgment:The Supreme Court upheld the detention order and ruled in favour of the State of Mysore. The Court concluded that the preventive detention provisions under the Mysore Police Act were not unconstitutional. It was held that preventive detention could be used in the interest of public order, and it was within the scope of reasonable restrictions on personal liberty as allowed by Article 19(5) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that such detention, while a restriction on personal liberty, was permissible under the Constitution if there was a genuine concern for maintaining public order. 13\. **Bihar vs. Shailabala Devi AIR 1952 SC 329** Facts:Shailabala Devi challenged her preventive detention under the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1950. She argued that her detention violated her right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and that it was arbitrary without sufficient justification. Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the detention, stating that preventive detention was valid to ensure public order. It ruled that while Article 21 guarantees personal liberty, this right can be restricted by reasonable and lawful restrictions in the interest of public safety. 14\. ***Emperor vs Sada Shiv Narayan* AIR 1941PC 82** Facts:*Emperor vs Sada Shiv Narayan* (1941) was a case in the context of Indian Penal Code Section 124A, which deals with sedition. In this case, Sada Shiv Narayan, an individual, was accused of attempting to bring disaffection toward the British Government by publishing seditious writings. The case focused on the application of sedition laws to the freedom of speech and expression under colonial rule, specifically whether certain writings and actions amounted to an attempt to incite violence or subversion of the government. Judgment: The court convicted Sada Shiv Narayan for publishing seditious materials. The judgment affirmed the application of sedition laws, interpreting that speech or writing that sought to incite rebellion or public disorder could be considered seditious under the IPC. It reinforced the use of such laws to prevent any challenge to the authority of the British Crown during the colonial period. 15\. **E.T. Sen v. E. Narayanan AIR 1969 Del. 201** Facts: Brigadier E.T. Sen, a retired officer, filed a criminal complaint against the publishers of a pamphlet containing defamatory statements about him. He argued that media publications about the case interfered with the judicial process, as they published one-sided reports and biased opinions, thereby prejudicing the court and public opinion. Judgment: The court held that such press activities could hinder a fair trial and disrupt justice, emphasising that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions, especially when it jeopardises the administration of justice.