Protest with Responsibility: On Public Demonstrations

The recent unrest concerning the Cockroach Janta Party was notably fueled by the government's initial misjudgment, which sought to suppress the demonstrations through force. This approach ultimately sparked widespread student indignation, solidifying the protest movement. The Supreme Court has now begun hearing petitions regarding the police's alleged use of excessive force, particularly incidents on July 20 in Delhi and a constable's purported aerial firing of an assault rifle to disperse crowds on July 25 in Siwan, Bihar. Additionally, the Court has consented to review pleas from the families of police officers who claim they were attacked and "lynched." There is no doubt about the intensity of the police crackdown on protesters on July 20; in addition to tear gas, videos reportedly showed officers wielding batons fitted with nails. However, as Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out, the state must also clarify why some police personnel seemingly lacked protective gear. Officers who are inadequately equipped are more prone to escalating force out of fear, which is why global best practices for crowd management involve a series of graduated responses. There is also validity in the argument that having the same police force accused of using undue force investigate itself could compromise the integrity of the inquiry. Nevertheless, the Chief Justice of India's statement that protests are permissible only "with due permission and at designated places" could potentially clash with the fundamental right to protest. The democratic essence of a demonstration is to create inconvenience for the state, and therefore, it should not be confined to locations or times convenient to the authorities. Simultaneously, not every form of inconvenience is safeguarded by the constitution; the principle of proportionality is key. If the CJI's emphasis on 'discipline' implies that protests must always be orderly and predictable, it risks imposing administrative preferences on a constitutional entitlement. The state bears the responsibility for preventing violence, safeguarding lives, and ensuring essential services continue. Yet, modern cities are densely populated, and even a peaceful blockade can infringe upon the freedoms of thousands of uninvolved citizens. Consequently, the judiciary should avoid equating disruption that causes public inconvenience—a mechanism through which protests gain political influence—with violence, which genuinely violates the rights of others. A standardized set of procedures would also be beneficial, given that policing falls under the State subject in the Seventh Schedule, leading to varying training, equipment, escalation protocols, and documentation rules across states. A national framework could standardize the criteria for authorizing high-impact crowd-control measures, mandate documentation of baton charges, require medical aid after force is used, ensure preservation of evidence, and facilitate independent investigations into serious injuries.