ABSTRACT
The right to protest is a one of the important aspects of a vibrant democracy. It provides the various rights to the citizens of the country to defend themselves against the unfair public policies, injustices or government actions by coming together for a common cause. In the context of the recent protests like farmers protests and CAA protests there are new pressing issues emerged like there should be a balance between the public protest and the public order maintained by the state. This article further talks about how there should be a balance between the right of protests and maintained public order. It further elucidates about the SC rulings and what should be the changes that can be made to provide a proper opportunity to every citizen to raise questions about their rights. This article concludes with the discussion of clearer guidelines and dialogue-based approaches to save both the democratic values and social harmony.
KEY WORDS
Rights, Restrictions, Protest, public order, farmers, CAA
INTRODUCTION
In past few years, India has witnessed a significant rise in mass protests mainly around the issues related to socio-political implications. The two most prominent issues were the Anti-CAA (citizenship amendment act) protests, and the farmers protest the now repealed farm laws. These movements brought the thousands of the people together resisting against the government for the legal and constitutional rights. These movements led to the prolonged occupations of public spaces, blockade of the roads, confrontations with the authorities. These protests also raise questions about the scope and limits of the right to protest in a democracy. These debates also started questioning about the legal framework that at which extent these protests can go and what are the restrictions state can impose in the interest of maintaining public order, sovereignty, and integrity of the country. This also puts a key question that at what extent the state can restrict protests in the name of public convenience or law and order.
While the Constitution of India grants certain rights to the people. Article 19(1)(a) states that everyone has the right to speak and express their views. Article 19(1)(b) states that people can assemble peacefully. However, the government also has the right to establish certain necessary regulations. This is mentioned in Articles 19(2) and 19(3). But there is often debate between the courts and politicians regarding what constitutes ‘necessary regulations’. This is especially true when police action is taken against people protesting peacefully, when the internet is shut down, or when cases of sedition are filed. This shows that there is always a tug-of-war between the freedom of people and the powers of the government in a democracy. Nowadays, digital platforms like social media have changed the way protests are conducted. Major movements like the Shaheen Bagh movement and the farmers’ protest received significant support from social media. This has allowed people to unite even without a single leader. However, the government has often monitored these platforms and has sometimes shut them down as well. This has raised concerns over people’s digital freedom, surveillance, and increased government intervention. For this reason, today’s demonstrations have become more powerful, and also more at risk than before.
- CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS OF THE RIGHT TO PROTEST
In India the constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights to every citizen of the country. The right to freedom of speech and expression is protected under the Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and expression provide every citizen the right to express their opinions, and article 19 (1) (b), which provides the right to assemble peacefully in different forms doing marches and dharnas in a peaceful manner only and do not engage in any kind of activities which cause harms to the public.
But these rights are not absolute they come up with reasonable restrictions under article 19 (2) and 19 (3) in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, and public order. These articles provide the rights to the state to take actions against any kind of illegal activity, harming the public at large, security of the state, and prevents any kind of disturbance to the common people.
The large-scale protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the three farm laws have started nationwide debates and led to the several supreme court interventions that clarified the legal limits of the right to protest. It further raises questions about that blocked of roads and public spaces. The authority of the public administration to dismantle these large-scale protests to safeguard the public order and protecting the individuals from effecting their daily life.
In the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Government of India (2018), the Supreme Court stated that people have the right to protest, but they cannot sit on the roads or public spaces indefinitely. The court explained that there needs to be a balance between the rights of protestors and the rights of the general public to move freely and access government facilities. This case is now considered very significant in determining the limits of such protests. Additionally, the court has repeatedly said that it is the government’s responsibility to not only maintain law and order but also to assist in peaceful protests.
In the Ramleela Maidan case (2012), the court stated that if the government uses excessive force and prevents peaceful protestors to gather, it is wrong and against the Constitution. Therefore, if the government needs to impose any restrictions, they should be in accordance with the law — not arbitrary, excessive, or politically motivated. The real challenge is to maintain this balance correctly and sincerely.
- SHAHEEN BAGH CASE (AMIT SAHNI V. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, 2020)
The Shaheen bagh case became a landmark case in the debates over the right to protest in India. The Shaheen bagh protest become a centre point in the many protests happening in the country at that time particularly led by the Muslim communities. Particularly in Shaheen bagh the protest led by the local Muslim women of the same area began a peaceful sit-in protest. The protest was continued and symbolic lasted for more than 100 days. It becomes the very powerful mode of peaceful resistance but at the same time it involved the blocking a major road (a key link between Delhi and Noida) caused the significant problems to the daily commuters, emergency services and residents to complete their daily works.
There was a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a citizen, Amit Sahni, in the Delhi high court, seeking clearance of the blocked roads. The high court directed the police to take actions according to the law. The same matter was taken to the supreme court, which give its final ruling in October 2020. The supreme court said that the state can only impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the public order. The state can only make regulations in aid of the right of peaceful assembly of each citizen. The state cannot impose the any unreasonable restrictions, a right to peaceful meetings on public streets, holding public rallies, mass movements regarding any socio-political issues is subject to the control of concerned authority.
The supreme court emphasized rights and restrictions at the same time it said the right to protest in not absolute right it comes with certain restrictions to public order, safety and security of the state, the court also stated that the blocked of the roads for indefinite time which creates difficulties for other is not acceptable and cannot be justified under the constitution.
The court also highlights the importance of the role of authorities that they should designate specific areas for protests, such as public ground, parks or other large spaces, that where citizens can peacefully raise their concerns and demonstrate without effecting the others’ rights.
The court stresses on the active role of the police and public administration, to articulate the matter and resolving such issues, rather than wait for judicial orders. They must actively propound ways to find the solutions and balance the law and order with democratic freedom.
The Shaheen Bagh ruling has now become a precedent for protests happening across India. In this ruling, the court stated that people have the right to protest, but it should be done within the framework of law and regulations, especially when it is in a public place. This ruling shows that the court wants to protect the rights of the people, but it is also necessary to maintain peace in society.
Furthermore, after this case, a significant debate has started regarding the need for designated places for protests in cities, and the government should create easier mechanisms for listening to public grievances. It has now become essential to have such systems – like grievance redressal centres, designated protest areas, and government officials to communicate with the public – so that people can express their views without hassle and there is no need for excessive uproar. This will strengthen democracy and maintain peace.
- SUPREME COURT REMARKS DURING THE FARMERS’ PROTEST
The farmers protest (2020-2021) was one of the most powerful protests in recent times it continues for almost two years people from all over India participated in this protest. But the active role was played by the farmers of Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh. Farmers in large numbers gathered at outskirts of national capital at places like (sindhu, Tikri, and Gazipur) these are the key entry points for the city. This mass movement result into the blocked of the roads for common people, daily commuters and disrupted traffic for several months.
There were so many petitions filed in the supreme court regarding this protest seeking intervention to remove the road blockades which causes weather harm to the common people and led to the disruption in daily life. The court while hearing these petitions, made significant observations that clearly provides a framework to both the protestors and the public authority. It shaped the national discourse on the limits of public protest in a democratic society.
The supreme court reiterate the fundamental right to protest, which is derived from Article 19(1) (a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19 (1) (b) (freedom to assemble peacefully without arms) of the Indian constitution. The court said that the difference of opinion is the very basic feature of a vibrant democracy, and the farmers are rightly using their constitutional rights to express their concerns.
The court at the same time mentions that these rights came up with certain restrictions. Under Article 19 (3), the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the right to assembly in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, and public order. The court said that the blockade of the roads, highways, by the protesters causing problems to common people specially to daily commuters, transporters, emergency services. The court further clearly mentions that the blockade of roads and highways for infinite time is not acceptable because it also violating the right of non-protesters.
The court concern about the active role of the executive authorities especially police in maintaining the law and order. The court emphasizes that the authorities should find a way to provide a proper chance to protestors to raise their concerns but does not create a chaotic atmosphere. Interestingly the court didn’t order the removal of the farmers from the protest sites seeing the ground reality and how deeply the farmers connected with this issue emotionally.
The court encouraged both the government and the farmers to engage in a dialogue to resolve this issue peacefully. The court approach during this protest was balancing it said that a peaceful protest is a constitutional right, but the same time stressed that it does not cause harm, disruption or any kind of inconvenience to the common people.
The farmers’ protest also showed that there is currently no proper arrangement for protests in India. In some countries, there is a system where specific places are designated for protests, and the local municipality takes care of them. However, India lacks such a clear system that would prevent the lives of the public from being affected during large and prolonged protests. The Supreme Court hinted in its opinions that such reforms are now necessary — such as designating specific places for protests, ensuring cleanliness and security during long sit-ins, and keeping avenues for continuous dialogue open between the government and the protesters to avoid conflicts or law and order issues. Additionally, the court’s approach this time was slightly different. Previously, the court would only decide based on the law, but during the farmers’ movement, the court adopted a path that maintained peace and dialogue among the people. The court did not issue any strict orders that could lead to chaos; instead, it adopted a conciliatory approach.
- PUBLIC ORDER: A LEGITIMATE RESTRICTION OR A SUPPRESSIVE TOOL?
What is public order what is safety of the state does every action done in the opposition of the state comes under the preview of the public order or safety? NO. The Indian constitution gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to peaceful assembly. These rights are enshrined under the Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b), forms the basis of participation of people from different ideologies for their different concerns in a democratic society.
However, these rights are not absolute they come up with certain reasonable restrictions under article 19 (2) and Article 19(3) which says that if any public protest or any kind of mass movement becomes the threat to the sovereignty, integrity and most importantly to public order. It can be restricted by state for the public safety.
If we talk about the public order, it is the normal operations of the society where the state insures peace, safety, and security for all its citizens. It includes the illicit arms, organised crimes, riots, obstruction of public movements and threats to life or property. The supreme court in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966) distinguished three centric circles: law and order, public order, and security of the state.
The court stated that not every breach of law necessarily affects the public order. when there is any illegal activity which causes harm to public at large or impacts a large group of people directly or indirectly becomes the issue of public order.
In several cases, the court affirmed the public order as a valid ground to restrict protests, public rallies, speeches, or assemblies, the reasoning is simple that no right can override the collective interest of societal peace and harmony. For example, in the Shaheen bagh judgement (2020), the supreme court acknowledged the protestors constitutional rights to disagreement against the CAA but also emphasized that the protestors cannot violate the legal rights of non-protesters.
Similarly, in the farmers protests the court reaffirmed that the protesters have the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of speech and expression, but the blocking of highways and public routes is not acceptable under the constitution.
Lastly despite its legitimacy, there is always a question raised about the misuse of public order by governments to silence any kind of peaceful protest, political opposition, peaceful dissent going on against their policies. Some protests are proactively denied permissions on vague grounds. Section 144 of the CRPC imposes to prevent any gathering. Some of the instances are very atrocious where the protestors are detained under stringent laws, such as unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), mentioning that these are threat to public order.
- RECENT BENCH OBSERVATIONS AND EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE
In recent times, the Indian judiciary- especially the supreme court has played an important role in understanding the impotence of right to protest synchronize it with the state duty to maintain the public order. specially following the Shaheen bagh and farmers protest, courts have increasingly stressed the need to respect democratic ways to dissent, at the same time encouraging the government to engage in dialogue with protesting citizens and try to resolve the issue through mediation.
There is a significant change in judicial attitude that can be seen the way courts have promoted peaceful resolutions through dialogues rather than legally suppressing the protests. The courts emphasized the importance of mutual understanding and proposing that negotiation and open communications between the parties are more effective in a democratic framework.
Particularly in the farmers protest the supreme court abstain from ordering the immediate eviction of the protestors. This reflects the changing in the judiciary approach that the protests are not only legal issues, but they are public concerns connected with them socially and emotionally.
The supreme court also understands that suppressive approach may increase tensions, while dialogue may decrease conflicts and protect democratic values. It also underlines that dissent is the lifeblood of the democracy. The supreme court in various cases acknowledged that right to protest is a constitutional guarantee and one of the important components of democratic country.
The Indian judiciary is, slowly but steadily building a jurisprudence that respects the protest as a constitutional right, at the same time acknowledging the rights accompany with the responsibilities. The courts encouraging governments to act wisely, avoid unnecessary force, and create system for public dialogue that ensures a fruitful result.
CONCLUSION
In the world’s largest democracy, the right to protest is one of the most important tools in the hands of the common citizens. The protests is a very vibrant tool though which the marginalised and voiceless citizens are heard, the citizens can raise their concerns and ask the questions from the government, it is the protests that through with the society evolves necessary changes in the system can be made. But when this democratic right begins to clash with the smooth functions of the society like blocking roads, causing inconvenience to common people, disrupting order then the constitutional parity is tasted.
The Indian Constitution, through Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. These rights, however, come with certain reasonable restrictions. Under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), the state is permitted to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, morality, and sovereignty. The Supreme Court, acting as the guardian of these rights, has taken the stance that while the right to protest is essential, it cannot override the rights of others to live and move freely. It can not infringe other legal and constitutional rights by disrupting public order like blocking a public highway for infinite time or using violent methods in a protest.
The changing approach of the judicial system in India affirmed that there is a need of systematic reform. The government must designate the protest spaces, create transparent permissions processes, and most importantly engage actively with citizens through dialogue listen to their problems try to solve them without suppressing their right to dissent and must act as the facilitators of lawful assembly.
At the same time, the misuse of the public order should be prevented because sometimes it works against the cause of public order itself. It harms the common people suppresses them by imposing the restrictive laws arbitrarily, such as section 144 CRPC or even anti- terror legislation, against those who are peacefully protesting this undermines the democratic values.
The supreme court plays a very significant role in maintaining this constitutional balance. It ensures that the state actions must align with the democratic principles. The courts maintained that the right to dissent is one of the basic features of a democratic nation. While ensuring that the protests does not result in prolonged disruption to public life.
At last, a mature democracy in not where the protests are absent or where the common citizens are afraid to ask questions from the government, but the one where dissent is respected and take forward respectively. India must strive for this exquisite balance where streets echo the voice of the people, but without violating anyone’s rights, the future of democratic protest lies not in confrontations, but in dialogue, coexistence, and constitutional discipline.