In a firm judgment reinforcing democratic norms, the Gujarat High Court has struck down the Ahmedabad Police’s years-long practice of imposing back-to-back Section 144 orders – calling the state’s conduct “arbitrary, unjustified, and violative of fundamental rights”.The message from the bench is clear: Gujarat Police cannot treat an emergency law as a standing rulebook.Justice M.R. Mengdey’s order, delivered on December 4, doesn’t just quash a 2019 notification – it highlights a pattern of policing that critics say has often been used to limit public dissent in the state.HC raises key question: ‘This was never an emergency – so why the endless bans?’The petitioners, who were booked for peacefully protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, told the court that from 2016 to 2019, Ahmedabad Police regularly invoked Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code – issuing prohibitory orders one after another, with barely a pause.Also read: In an Open Letter, IIM-A Students Condemn the Citizenship (Amendment) ActThe High Court agreed.The judgment makes it clear that the city police had turned Section 144 – meant only for brief, exceptional situations – into a continuous restriction, resulting in a near-constant bar on public assembly.The court’s observations also suggest that Gujarat Police appeared to rely on routine notifications instead of demonstrating specific justification.The court pointed out a crucial detail, that the Ahmedabad Police did not record reasons for imposing these restrictions. Nor was there meaningful transparency in the process.Just order after order, issued and enforced.Adding to this, the public was largely unaware these restrictions existed. The notifications were placed in the official gazette – a place the average citizen rarely accesses – and not otherwise communicated through accessible public channels.The high court criticised the state for this lack of openness, observing that modern governments cannot rely solely on procedural formality when fundamental rights are involved.HC: Stop labelling everything a law-and-order problemIn a pointed remark, the court said that authorities “clearly circumvented” the legal safeguards of Section 144 by mechanically reissuing orders.In effect: Gujarat Police was using a legal shortcut that reduced accountability.The court also noted that similar extensive orders were being issued under Section 37 of the Gujarat Police Act – hinting that the problem isn’t isolated, but part of the policing culture in the state.Judicial reproach of Gujarat’s policing styleThis judgment is more than a legal setback – it is a public reprimand.Also read: Disturbed Areas Act in Gujarat: A Tool to Discriminate Against MuslimsBy calling out the arbitrary, unexplained and repetitive use of a powerful legal provision, the Gujarat High Court has effectively accused the state police of normalising emergency powers, constraining peaceful protest and weakening constitutional freedoms.For a force that often highlights its efficiency, the verdict points to a deeper concern: a policing system that appears to prioritise control over transparency and accountability.This story, originally published on Vibes of India, has been lightly edited.