Issued by an Executive Magistrate (District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government).

Can be invoked when there is an apprehension of danger or nuisance, or to prevent obstruction, annoyance, or injury to any person lawfully employed.

Prohibits the assembly of four or more people in a specified area, often referred to as a 'curfew' or 'prohibitory order'.

Can restrict movement, carrying of weapons, public gatherings, and even suspend internet services.

An order under Section 144 remains in force for not more than 2 months, but the State Government can extend it for a further period of not more than 6 months from the date of the original order.

The affected person can challenge the order in the High Court.

Violation of an order under Section 144 is a punishable offense under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) ruled that orders under Section 144 must be proportionate and necessary, and cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression or dissent.

Issued by an Executive Magistrate (District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government).

Can be invoked when there is an apprehension of danger or nuisance, or to prevent obstruction, annoyance, or injury to any person lawfully employed.

Prohibits the assembly of four or more people in a specified area, often referred to as a 'curfew' or 'prohibitory order'.

Can restrict movement, carrying of weapons, public gatherings, and even suspend internet services.

An order under Section 144 remains in force for not more than 2 months, but the State Government can extend it for a further period of not more than 6 months from the date of the original order.

The affected person can challenge the order in the High Court.

Violation of an order under Section 144 is a punishable offense under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) ruled that orders under Section 144 must be proportionate and necessary, and cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression or dissent.