Protecting protest: on mass protests

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court is hearing petitions on alleged excessive police force during recent protests, while the CJI’s remarks on protests requiring due permission have sparked debate. The case has also revived the question of whether public inconvenience caused by peaceful protests should be conflated with violence, and the need for a national protocol on crowd-control measures.

Why does conflating inconvenience with violence weaken the right to protest?

1. Legal standard blurred: Treating traffic disruption or public inconvenience as equivalent to violence lowers the threshold at which force can be used against a peaceful gathering.
2. Judicial remark’s weight: A “due permission” framing from the Chief Justice of India carries institutional weight that can shape how lower courts and police read the limits of Article 19(1)(b), the right to assemble peaceably.
3. Precedent tension: Existing case law distinguishes disruptive but peaceful assembly from violent assembly, and collapsing that distinction narrows the constitutional space for protest.

What does the absence of a national crowd control protocol expose?

1. No uniform threshold: Without a national protocol, the force threshold used against protestors varies by state and by individual police commander’s judgment.
2. Accountability gap: No standard mechanism currently holds police accountable for disproportionate force used to disperse a protest deemed merely inconvenient.
3. Comparative absence: Other democracies operationalise proportionality standards for crowd control through documented use of force continuums, a structure India’s policing framework lacks in codified form.

Conclusion

Peaceful protests that cause public inconvenience should not be treated the same as violent acts. A national crowd-control protocol with clear rules on the use of force and strong accountability can help protect both the right to protest and public order.

Back2Basics

The right to protest in India is an implied fundamental right derived from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms) of the Constitution of India.

Constitutional Basis and Rules

1. No Absolute Right: Protests must remain completely peaceful and unarmed.
2. Reasonable Restrictions: Under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), the state can limit protests to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, and public order.
3. No Blocking Roads: The Supreme Court has ruled that public ways and spaces cannot be permanently blocked or occupied, balancing protester rights with public movement.

Legal Obligations and Permissions

1. Prior Permission: Organizers must generally seek local police or municipal permissions to hold public gatherings or marches.
2. Designated Spaces: Authorities often restrict demonstrations to specific assigned areas (like designated grounds or parks) to prevent traffic and safety hazards.
3. Police Action Limits: Courts maintain that mere assembly or peaceful agitation does not justify excessive police force or lathi-charges.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2022] Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. Comment.

Linkage: The PYQ tests the scope of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 and reasonable restrictions. The editorial examines the limits of the right to peaceful protest under Article 19, and whether restrictions on protests satisfy the test of proportionality.