The right to protest and the limits of police power | Explained

The right to protest peacefully is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (Right to assemble peacefully and without arms) of the Indian Constitution. However, these rights are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) and Article 19(3) in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, public order, and morality. The crucial debate lies in balancing this fundamental right with the state's responsibility to maintain public order. The Supreme Court, in various judgments like Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs Union of India (2018), has emphasized the need for a delicate balance, recognizing both the right to protest and the right of others to move freely. UPSC often asks to critically analyze the boundaries of the right to protest, requiring aspirants to weigh constitutional guarantees against the necessity of maintaining law and order, and to evaluate the 'reasonableness' of restrictions imposed by authorities.

The police response to protests raises critical questions about standard operating procedures (SOPs) and the principle of proportionality in the use of force. While police are authorized to use force to disperse an unlawful assembly under Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now Section 145 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)), the force used must be necessary and proportionate to the threat posed. The deployment of tear gas, lathi charges, and the shutdown of public transport (like Metro stations) must be justified as a last resort rather than a first response. The reported disruption of mobile connectivity also touches upon modern governance tools used for crowd control, which must be legally sanctioned and transparent. The recent suspension of telecom services rules requires specific procedures and justifications. For UPSC, understanding the legal framework governing police action during assemblies and the ethical considerations of state power—ensuring it acts as a protector of rights rather than an oppressor—is essential for answering questions on governance and police reforms.

From an internal security perspective, managing large-scale protests, especially near critical zones like Parliament, is a significant challenge for law enforcement. The role of police is to prevent the situation from deteriorating into a riot or causing damage to public property, which can destabilize internal security. However, the tactics used, such as internet or mobile connectivity shutdowns, represent a double-edged sword. While intended to prevent the spread of rumors and coordinate mobilization of disruptive elements, these actions also infringe upon the right to communication and can create panic. The suspension of internet services is governed by the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, framed under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. In the Anuradha Bhasin judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that an indefinite suspension of internet services is illegal and that such orders must adhere to the principle of proportionality and be subject to judicial review. Aspirants must be prepared to analyze the security imperatives of crowd control against the civil liberties implications of tactics like digital blackouts.