Just as India has "S.144" to prevent annoyance from public processions and gatherings, the UK has "The Public Order Act, 1986" in its entirety to address the issue. Both serve to maintain public tranquilly and regulate public processions and gatherings.

S.144 of CRPC lacks to be in detailed form and Under the umbrella of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, the discouraging and gloomy cloud of Section 144, however, looms large to silence dissent and discourage democratic participation.

On the other hand Public Order Act, 1986 of UK is in more detailed form and most importantly has conditioned to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation, including conditions as to the route of the procession or prohibiting it from entering any public place specified in the directions. The 1986 Public Order Act was introduced in response to a number of causes.

The Southall riot in 1979, the Brixton riot that spread to other cities in 1981, and the national miner's strike and related disruption between 1984 and 1985 are examples of significant public disorder.

After analysing various instances in India were S.144 was misused, it can be easily said that Section 144 is the favourite tool of repression of the state, police and their allies in power: One that is unfailingly and rampantly used to silence dissent, impose self-censorship, discourage people from organising and crackdown on peaceful protesters.

In India if we could have a new legislation just like Public Order Act ,1986 to insure not only Public peace but also ensuring a Balance between Liberty And Security. A legislation to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of communal hatred.

With the guidelines from the Public Order Act 1986, India can get help to build a legislation that will be in more detailed and conditioned manner.

The provisions from POA 1986, which is relevant In Indian context and can be included while drafting as similar provision in India:
Section 11: Advance notice of public processions
requires at least six clear days' written notice to be given to the police before most public processions, including details of the intended time and route, and giving the name and address of at least one person proposing to organise it; creates offences for the organisers of a procession if they do not give sufficient notice, or if the procession diverges from the notified time or route.

Section 12: Imposing conditions on public processions
provides police the power to impose conditions on processions "to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community"

Section 13: Prohibiting public processions
A chief police officer has the power to ban public processions up to three months by applying to local authority for a banning order which needs subsequent confirmation from the Home Secretary.

Section 14: Imposing conditions on public assemblies
provides police the power to impose conditions on assemblies "to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community". The conditions are limited to the specifying of:

• the number of people who may take part,
• the location of the assembly, and
• its maximum duration.

Section 20: Public performance of play.

1. If a public performance of a play is given which involves the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, any person who presents or directs the performance is guilty of an offence if:

   1. he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
   2. having regard to all the circumstances (and, in particular, taking the performance as a whole) racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

2. If a person presenting or directing the performance is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred, it is a defence for him to prove:

   1. that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the performance would involve the use of the offending words or behaviour, or
   2. that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the offending words or behaviour were threatening, abusive or insulting, or
   3. that he did not know and had no reason to suspect that the circumstances in which the performance would be given would be such that racial hatred would be likely to be stirred up.

Section 22: Broadcasting or including programme in cable programme service.

1. If a programme involving threatening, abusive or insulting visual images or sounds is, each of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is guilty of an offence if:
   
   1. he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
   2. having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

Section 29B: Use of words or behaviour or display of written material

1. A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
    
2. An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
    
3. In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.
    
4. This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme service.