Image Credit: Amit Mehra
Context
The recent police action against protesters marching towards Parliament has renewed debate over whether staging a protest is legal in India and what restrictions apply to the Right to Protest.
Key Highlights
The issue brings into focus the constitutional balance between citizens’ right of democratic freedom and the responsibility of the State to ensure public order and protection of public life.
Is the Right to Protest a Fundamental Right?
- The Right to Protest is not specifically listed as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution.
- But this is based on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(b), which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
- Peaceful means of protest enable citizens to voice concerns, shape public policy and hold governments to account.
- The freedom struggle itself was an example of the significance of organised non-violent public mobilisation in democracy in India.
What Restrictions Can the State Impose?
- Article 19 rights are not absolute.
- State may impose reasonable restrictions for sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.
- Restrictions also include those in relation to contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.
- Protests can be regulated by authorities under police permissions and prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or designating sites for protests.
- Thus, the right to protest is constitutionally guaranteed, but the venue, timing, size and manner of the protest can be subject to legal restrictions.
Can Protesters March to Parliament?
- A right to protest does not imply a right to protest at any place.
- Newspaper, Parliament, and other areas around the Parliament are very sensitive areas with special security and public order arrangements.
- In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court had reiterated the necessity for regulation of protests around the Parliament, North and South Blocks and other important areas.
- The Court stressed regulation that takes into consideration the number of demonstrators, the location of the demonstration and its character vis-à-vis sensitive areas.
- The decision reaffirmed the status of Jantar Mantar as a protest spot and also set the precedent that the regulation cannot be arbitrary.
What Has the Supreme Court Said?
- In Himat Lal K Shah (1973), the Supreme Court stated freedom of assembly as a ‘fundamental of democracy’.
- The Court determined that while the public authorities may intervene in the use of public space, there is a difference between reasonable regulation and arbitrary exclusion.
- In Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (2020) aka Shaheen Bagh case, the Court ruled that protesters are not allowed to obstruct public streets or inconvenience citizens for an extended period of time.
- The Court explained that protests were allowed to take place in specific areas and were not to involve the “indefinite occupation” of public places.
Conclusion
- The Indian Constitution affords everyone the freedom to protest, but not the freedom to protest in any way or place.
- The democratic principle is thus evident: the authority to regulate is acceptable, but to suppress peaceful dissent is not.
Source: The Indian Express
Prelims PYQ
Q. Consider the following statements:
- According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances.
- The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to a person being held under preventive detention.
- According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002, a confession made by the accused to the police cannot be used as evidence.
How many of the above statements are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) All three
(d) None
.png)
