Unlawful assembly is a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace.

If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot. Section 144 of
the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers a magistrate to prohibit an assembly of more than ten people in an area. According to sections 141-149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the maximum punishment for engaging in rioting is rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and/or fine. Every member of an unlawful assembly can be held responsible for a crime committed by the group. Obstructing an officer trying to disperse an unlawful assembly may attract further punishment.

== A meeting of three or more individuals to commit a crime or carry out a lawful or unlawful purpose in a
manner likely to imperil the peace and tranquillity of the neighborhood. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right of freedom of assembly. Under the Common Law and modern statutes, however, the meeting of three or more persons may constitute an unlawful assembly if the persons have an illegal purpose or if their meeting will breach the public peace of the community. If they actually execute their purpose, they have committed the criminal offense of riot. Under the common law, when three or more individuals assembled for an illegal purpose, the offense of unlawful assembly was complete without the commission of any additional Overt Act. Some modern state statutes require both assembly and the commission of one of the acts proscribed by the statutes, even if the purpose of the assembly is not completed. Generally, an unlawful assembly is a misdemeanor under both common law and statutes. The basis of the offense of unlawful assembly is the intent with which the individuals assemble. The members of the assembled group must have in mind a fixed purpose to perform an illegal act. The time when the intent is formed is immaterial, and it does not matter whether the purpose of the group is lawful or unlawful if they intend to carry out that purpose in a way that is likely to precipitate a breach of the peace. An assembly of individuals to carry on their ordinary business is not unlawful. Conversely, when three or more persons assemble and act jointly in committing a criminal offense, such as Assault and Battery, the assembly is unlawful. All those who participate in unlawful assemblies incur criminal responsibility for the acts of their associates performed in furtherance of their common objective. The mere presence of an individual in an unlawful assembly is enough to charge that person with participation in the illegal gathering. Political gatherings and demonstrations raise the most troublesome issues involving unlawful assembly. The line between protecting freedom of assembly and protecting the peace and tranquillity of the community is often difficult for courts to draw. In the 1960s, in a series of decisions involving organized public protests against racial Segregation in southern and border states, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out breach-of-the-peace convictions involving African Americans who had participated in peaceful public demonstrations. For example, in Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 83 S. Ct. 680, 9 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1963), the Court held that the conviction of 187 African American students for demonstrating on the grounds of the state capitol in Columbia, South Carolina, had infringed on their "constitutionally protected rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of their grievances." In Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 87 S. Ct. 242, 17 L. Ed. 2d 149 (1966), however, the Court also made clear that assemblies are not lawful merely because they involve a political issue. In this case Harriet L. Adderley and other college students had protested the arrest of Civil Rights protesters by blocking a jail driveway. When the students ignored requests to leave the area, they were arrested and charged

with Trespass. The Court held that "[t]he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated." In general, a unit of government may reasonably regulate parades, processions, and large public gatherings by requiring a license. Licenses cannot, however, be denied based on the political message of the group. Persons who refuse to obtain a license and hold their march or gathering may be charged with unlawful assembly.

Cross-references
Freedom of Speech; Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Litigation Law Firm Delhi

India's Best Legal Firm For All Types Of Issues. Enquire Today!
Vidyarthi-Associates.com

unlawful assembly n. although freedom of assembly is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the
Constitution, it is unlawful to assemble for the purpose of starting a riot or breaching the peace, or when such an assembly reasonably could be expected to cause a riot or endanger the public. The right of law enforcement to require disbursement of such an assembly is part of the "police powers" of the state, but the dangers of riot or breach of peace are subjective and decided on the spot by police officers or other public officials. Until the late 1930s claims of "unlawful assembly" were often used to break up labor union picket lines, against peaceful civil rights marches in the 1950s and 1960s, and by the police against antiVietnam War demonstrators in Los Angeles, Washington and Chicago in the late 1960s.
Copyright 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

Ads by Google

Special Edition Scorpio

Only 500 units of this special Scorpio to be produced. Enquire now
Mahindrascorpio.com/SpecialEdition

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, crim. law. A disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons who meet together with an intent mutually to assist each other in the execution of some unlawful enterprise of a private nature, with force and violence; if they move forward towards its execution, it is then a rout (q.v.)

and if they actually execute their design, it amounts to a riot. (q.v.) 4 Bl. Com. 140; 1 Russ. on Cr. 254; Hawk. c. 65, s. 9; Com. Dig. Forcible Entry, D 10; Vin. Abr. Riots, &c., A. ===unlawful assembly, gathering of persons for the purpose of committing either

a crimeinvolving force or a noncriminal act in a manner likely to terrify the public. The extent to which a government penalizes disorderly assemblies often reflects the political value that it places on the right of assembly. In Anglo-American law an assembly of persons is unlawful if the participants share a common illegal purpose, regardless of whether steps are taken to effect that purpose. Thus, it is distinguishable from rout and riot, which require more than mere intent (see riot). In Canada an assembly is unlawful not if it has an unlawful purpose but, rather, if it causes persons in the vicinity to fear that the assembly will disturb the peace tumultuously or cause others to do so. In some U.S. jurisdictions two persons are enough to constitute an assembly. In India five persons are required. The continental European codes usually subsume the offense of unlawful assembly under the heading of resistance to public authority. Some constitutions in code-law countries follow the U.S. Constitution in guaranteeing freedom of assembly. But the administrative authority vested in local police forces to control the use of public parks and roads and, if there is a danger of violence, to disperse crowds can be misused to justify interference in many public gatherings that are innocent in their purpose. See also disturbing the peace.