Context

• Recent protests in Delhi against the exclusion of voters during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have raised concerns about constitutional freedoms.
• Protesters have demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, while the government’s response has intensified debates over the suppression of peaceful demonstrations.
• India has a rich tradition of protests, from the freedom struggle to movements led by farmers, students, trade unions and civil society.
• The right to protest is a constitutional freedom, not a government privilege.

The Democratic Significance of Dissent

• Dissent enables citizens to question government policies, demand accountability and express grievances.
• However, a growing culture of suspicion towards dissent threatens democratic participation.
• Questioning protesters about permissions or funding can undermine their autonomy and portray disagreement as hostility towards the government.
• A mature democracy must recognise that peaceful criticism strengthens democratic institutions.
• Governments should address public grievances through dialogue and accountability rather than coercion. 

Constitutional Protection of the Right to Protest

• Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
• These provisions enable citizens to organise demonstrations and collectively demand policy changes.
• However, Article 19(3) permits reasonable restrictions on peaceful assembly in the interests of sovereignty, integrity and public order.
• The challenge lies in distinguishing reasonable regulation from arbitrary restriction.
• Authorities may regulate the timing, location and manner of demonstrations, but such measures must not eliminate the practical exercise of fundamental rights.

Misuse of Preventive Laws and Police Powers

• Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, empowers authorities to issue preventive orders in urgent cases involving potential danger or public disturbance.
• Although necessary during genuine emergencies, its excessive application can restrict peaceful demonstrations.
• Reported practices, including disproportionate force, prolonged detention, restrictions on access to lawyers and essential necessities, and deportation notices to participating Overseas Citizens of India, raise concerns about civil liberties.
• Such measures create a chilling effect on freedom of speech and assembly, discouraging citizens from expressing legitimate grievances.
• Preventive powers must be exercised with restraint and remain subject to legal scrutiny. Public order cannot justify blanket suppression of dissent.

Judicial Precedents and the Limits of State Authority

• In Himmat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1972), the Supreme Court distinguished reasonable regulation of public meetings from arbitrary exclusion.
• It warned against restrictions that effectively eliminate opportunities for public gatherings in streets and parks.
• The judgment establishes that accessible public spaces are essential for democratic participation. Without them, the right to assemble risks becoming merely theoretical.
• In Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the predecessor provision to Section 163 but observed that it was intended for emergencies.
• These judgments underline the importance of proportionate restrictions and judicial oversight.
• Preventive powers must not become routine instruments for suppressing political expression.

Designating Protest Sites

• The denotification of Jantar Mantar, a prominent protest site in Delhi, raises concerns about access to public spaces.
• Relocating demonstrations to distant or inaccessible locations can weaken their effectiveness by separating protesters from the public, media and policymakers.
• On October 9, the Supreme Court directed authorities to designate suitable alternative protest sites while hearing petitions concerning a blanket transport ban affecting access to Delhi.
• However, no interim relief was granted in the cases challenging Jantar Mantar’s denotification, leaving the site inaccessible at the time described.
• Alternative locations must be genuinely accessible, well-connected and sufficiently visible to facilitate democratic participation.
• Merely designating distant sites cannot adequately protect the right to assembly.
• The judiciary must scrutinise restrictions that weaken constitutional freedoms while recognising the state’s responsibility to maintain public order. 

Conclusion

• Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect expression and peaceful assembly, while Article 19(3) permits only reasonable restrictions.
• Excessive preventive measures, disproportionate police action and inaccessible protest sites threaten civil liberties and democratic participation.
• The government must distinguish peaceful criticism from genuine threats to public order, while courts must prevent arbitrary executive action.
• Ultimately, a strong democracy does not fear dissent; it protects the freedom to disagree. Safeguarding peaceful protests and accessible public spaces is essential to public trust, accountability and constitutional governance.