The Right to Protest and the Limits of Police Power

Source: The Hindu 

The Story So Far 

• People from across the country gathered at Jantar Mantar in central Delhi on July 20 for the Cockroach Janta Party's (CJP) "Chalo Sansad" march, demanding reforms in the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the resignation of the Union Education Minister. 
• Within hours, the demonstration descended into clashes. Police used tear gas and lathi charges to disperse protesters attempting to march towards Parliament. 
• Several nearby Metro stations were temporarily closed, and many demonstrators reported losing mobile connectivity during the march, hampering communication and coordination. 
• The incident has renewed an old constitutional question: how should a democracy police public protest?

Is the Right to Protest Absolute? 

• The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to assemble peaceably under Article 19(1)(b). 
• This right is subject to "reasonable restrictions" under Article 19(3) in the interests of public order, the sovereignty and integrity of India, and other constitutionally recognised grounds. 
• In practice, these restrictions are implemented through statutes governing public order and policing.

Was the CJP March Unlawful? 

• Whether a protest is "unlawful" is a fact-specific legal question. 
• Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), an assembly of five or more persons becomes an unlawful assembly only if its common object falls within specific categories — such as using criminal force, resisting the execution of law, committing an offence, or compelling another person by force or threat. 
• A gathering that begins lawfully may become unlawful if its conduct changes over the course of the event. 
• Ahead of the march, Delhi Police stated that the CJP had not sought permission for a procession to Parliament. 
• Police also pointed to prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which barred protests, marches and demonstrations in the New Delhi district, except at the designated Jantar Mantar protest site with prior permission. 
• As demonstrators attempted to march towards Parliament, officers stopped the procession and eventually used tear gas and lathi charges to disperse the crowd. 
• The authorities' response has since come under judicial scrutiny, with the Delhi High Court seeking responses from the Centre and the Delhi Police on petitions alleging police brutality and excessive use of force.

What Standards Govern Police Action? 

• The National Human Rights Commission's Manual on Human Rights for Police Officers emphasises that effective policing and respect for human rights are complementary rather than conflicting objectives. 
• The Manual states that a democratic country like India needs democratic policing, based on the idea of the police as protectors of the rights of citizens and the rule of law, while ensuring the safety and security of all equally. 
• It also notes that human rights violations by police can have a "multi-dimensional impact" — eroding public confidence, bringing institutions into disrepute, and even escalating civil unrest at times. 
• These principles are consistent with the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms, which require force to be lawful, necessary and proportionate.

When Can Police Use Force? 

• Under the BNSS, an Executive Magistrate or an authorised police officer may order an unlawful assembly, or an assembly likely to disturb public peace, to disperse. If the assembly does not comply, the law permits it to be dispersed by force. 
• The Code of Conduct for the Police in India states that police should, as far as practicable, "use the methods of persuasion, advice and warning." Only when the application of force becomes inevitable should the irreducible minimum force required in the circumstances be used. 
• The protests also raised questions about police accountability after videos appeared to show some police personnel without visible name tags or with their faces covered. 
• While the BNSS requires every arresting police officer to bear accurate, visible and clear identification of name, it contains no corresponding requirement for police personnel engaged in crowd-control or the dispersal of assemblies — a gap the article flags as significant.

How has the Supreme Court Viewed Protests? 

• A day after the clashes, a lawyer urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu cognisance of the alleged police excesses, citing videos circulating online. The Chief Justice of India orally declined the request, remarking that the Court was not interested in videos and would not waste its own or the petitioner's time. 
• Over the years, however, the Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down principles governing both the right to protest and the limits of police action: 

Case Laws: 

Conclusion 

The Jantar Mantar clashes underscore the continuing tension between the constitutionally guaranteed right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) and the State's power to impose reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) in the interest of public order. While statutes such as the BNS and BNSS empower authorities to regulate and, where necessary, disperse unlawful assemblies, this power is not unfettered — it is bounded by principles of necessity, proportionality and accountability, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Anita Thakur, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, and Amit Sahni. The episode also exposes gaps — such as the absence of a clear identification requirement for police personnel deployed in crowd-control operations — that continue to raise questions about accountability in the policing of dissent.