RIGHT TO PROTEST IS NOT JUST RHETORIC

-Bruhaspati Samal-

When the people rise against injustice, the streets become the living pages of democracy. When students demand accountability for examination irregularities, lawyers challenge police action, workers fight for their rights, or citizens question the integrity of elections, they are exercising the democratic freedom to dissent. A government may possess the power to administer, regulate and enforce the law, but that power does not place it above public scrutiny. The right to protest is not a concession from those in authority; it is a constitutional freedom earned through India's long struggle against injustice. If citizens can speak only when the government agrees, assemble only when their presence causes no inconvenience, and protest only when their demands are acceptable to those in power, democracy risks becoming an empty promise.

Article 19 of the Constitution provides the essential foundation for this freedom. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peacefully and without arms; and Article 19(1)(c) safeguards the right to form associations and unions. These provisions enable citizens to organise collective struggles, challenge government policies and demand accountability. However, Articles 19(2), 19(3) and 19(4) permit reasonable restrictions on specified constitutional grounds, including public order. The decisive question is whether restrictions are genuinely necessary, lawful and proportionate or whether public-order arguments are being stretched so far that the fundamental right itself becomes ineffective.

The recent protests in India demonstrate why this question cannot remain confined to constitutional textbooks. The July 2026 agitation by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) over alleged NEET paper leaks exposed the growing confrontation between peaceful protest and state authority. Protesters attempting to march towards Parliament faced police barricades, detentions and allegations of lathi-charge and tear-gas use, while subsequent legal proceedings raised questions about the proportionality of the police response. The controversy intensified in October when the INDIA bloc, students, lawyers and other groups launched protests against the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demanded the resignation of the present Chief Election Commissioner. In Delhi and other places, demonstrators encountered heavy security deployments, barricades, restrictions on access to protest locations and detentions, prompting allegations of high-handedness and excessive use of police power. Lawyers also raised concerns over the treatment of protesters and the restrictions imposed on peaceful demonstrations. While the administration cited public-order and security considerations, the protesters questioned whether these measures were being used disproportionately to stifle dissent. Any allegations of physical brutality must be independently investigated and established through evidence; equally, claims of public-order threats cannot justify indiscriminate force or arbitrary detention. When barricades replace dialogue and coercion overshadows constitutional freedoms, a fundamental question confronts the Republic: can the right to peaceful protest remain meaningful if those exercising it are treated as a threat rather than citizens demanding accountability?

These events must be examined against the Supreme Court's established jurisprudence. In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973), the Court recognised the importance of public meetings while accepting that their exercise could be regulated. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), it emphasised proportionality in restrictions affecting fundamental freedoms and held that preventive orders could not be used to suppress legitimate democratic expression without satisfying legal requirements. In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), concerning Shaheen Bagh, the Court upheld the importance of peaceful protest while holding that public ways could not be occupied indefinitely in a manner that seriously obstructed others. Taken together, these judgments demand a constitutional balance—not unlimited freedom to obstruct public life, but equally no unlimited authority to prohibit peaceful assembly.

The problem arises when regulation becomes suppression. A government has every right to protect public property, regulate traffic, prevent violence and safeguard citizens. Protesters, too, must act peacefully, respect others' rights and accept lawful restrictions. But authorities should distinguish peaceful participants from individuals accused of specific offences. Blanket prohibitions, disproportionate preventive measures, arbitrary detentions and the closure of established protest venues warrant close scrutiny when less restrictive alternatives may be available. A protest site that is so remote or inaccessible that demonstrators cannot meaningfully communicate their grievances may preserve the appearance of permission while diminishing its substance. Restrictions must be justified by actual circumstances, not merely by the inconvenience or embarrassment that dissent may cause.

For workers, farmers, pensioners, students and unemployed youth, protest remains an essential instrument of collective representation. Their demands may concern employment, fair examinations, wages, pensions, social security or electoral accountability. Every demand must be judged on its merits, but no citizen should have to establish the correctness of a grievance before being allowed to express it peacefully. The Constitution protects the right to challenge decisions, not a guarantee that every challenge will succeed. When dialogue fails, demonstrations and lawful collective action become important means of bringing unresolved issues into public view. The right to protest protects the voice of the people precisely because those who govern cannot be the sole judges of the grievances directed against them.

India's freedom struggle taught the nation that resistance to unjust authority can be a force for constitutional transformation. The Constitution must preserve that democratic inheritance. The state must answer dissent with reason, transparency and proportionate action; protest organisers must uphold peace, discipline and respect for fellow citizens. Allegations of police excesses must be investigated impartially, just as unlawful conduct by demonstrators must be dealt with according to law. Constitutional institutions gain legitimacy not by avoiding criticism, but by demonstrating their independence, fairness and accountability under scrutiny.

Let no barricade become a substitute for an answer, no prohibitory order an automatic instrument of silence, and no constitutional guarantee remain a decorative promise. The streets must remain spaces where ordinary people can peacefully challenge power and demand justice. A democracy that tolerates only convenient dissent weakens the very freedoms that sustain it. Article 19 must be protected not merely in speeches, courtrooms and official documents, but in the lived experience of citizens who gather peacefully to make their voices heard. The right to protest is not just rhetoric. It is the people's constitutional shield against arbitrary power, their instrument of collective dignity and their enduring claim to participate in the destiny of the Republic. When the people speak peacefully, democracy must listen. When they demand accountability, power must answer. And when injustice persists, the people's right to raise their voice must never be extinguished.

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist, presently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers and President, Forum of Civil Pensioners' Association / National Coordination Committee of Pensioners' Association, Odisha State Committee)

*****