Recently, a significant ruling by the Supreme Court (SC) has been in the news. While the court upholds the right to peaceful protest, it also clarifies that public spaces and ways cannot be indefinitely occupied for this purpose.
The Petition Leading to the Ruling
The ruling came about after a petition was filed in the SC addressing issues caused by protests leading to roadblocks and traffic problems. The sit-in protests, concerning the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, were staged in the Shaheen Bagh area of the capital from December 2019 to March 2020 as per the petition. The petitioner also pointed out that the Delhi High Court (HC) should have intervened positively rather than leaving the situation fluid, and that the administration should have engaged in discussions with the protesters. Despite the lapse of ample time, there were no negotiations or actions taken by the administration.
Potential Problems with the Protest’s Location and Management
Protesters seemingly failed to comprehend the potential implications of the Covid-19 pandemic while sustaining large gatherings in a small area. Anchored to a single site, the protests mirrored many modern “leaderless” dissents fueled by digital mediums. The gathering comprised diverse groups of protesters, resulting in multiple influences potentially counteracting each other’s purposes.
SC’s Verdict on Assemblies and Administration’s Role
The SC denied the plea of applicants who defended the protesters seeking intervention, stating that an indeterminable number of people cannot assemble at will to protest. The court stressed that occupying public ways for protests ad infinitum is unacceptable and that the administration must act to clear such areas of encumbrances. The responsibility to prevent public space encroachments lies solely with the state or UT administrations and should not necessitate court orders.
2018 Judgement and the Role of Technology in Protests
The SC referred to its 2018 judgement concerning demonstrations at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar during the verdict. This ruling strived to balance local residents’ interests with the protesters’ right to demonstrate, urging the police to establish a proper mechanism for using the area for peaceful protests. The judgement also discussed the pros and cons of technology’s impact on social movements. While digital infrastructure can quickly scale up movements, allowing for leaderless aspirations and evasion of censorship, it can also create highly polarized environments leading to parallel dialogues with limited constructive outcomes.
SC’s Observations on Dissent
The SC acknowledges the right to peaceful protest against legislation, maintaining that “democracy and dissent go hand in hand,” but protests expressing dissent must occur in specific designated places. While the act of protest and dissent traces its roots back to the Freedom struggle, dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy. The Constitution guarantees the right to protest and express dissent, with an obligation towards certain duties. Article 19 confers upon citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b). These rights enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the state’s actions or inactions. In a democracy, free speech and peaceful protest rights are treasured and should be encouraged and respected. However, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), imposed in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, and public order, enforced through police regulations. The protester’s right must align with the commuter’s right and co-exist in mutual respect.
