“A new and more reasonable framework to Protest”

08 Oct “A new and more reasonable framework to Protest”

The Supreme Court delivered its verdict on 07 Oct,2020 on the protests organized at Shaheen Bagh after Parliament passed the Citizen Amendment Act (CAA). On the pretext of a spontaneous protest, the protestors at Shaheen Bagh blocked the Kalindi Kunj arterial road that connects Delhi with Faridabad and Noida and in the process caused huge inconveniences to commuters and the general public. While the protests dissolved in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the judgment by the three-member bench of the Supreme Court has wider ramifications.

In this regard, the three-member bench of the Supreme Court identify the right to peaceful dissent as a constitutionally protected right under Article 19 (1) (b). This gives citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.  The Supreme courts also rightly observed that public spaces such as roads and critical infrastructure cannot be occupied indefinitely and there are already designated protest sites available where one can assemble peacefully and protest without inconveniencing the public at large. The bench of the Apex court also states that one cannot adopt means and modes of protest that were used against colonial rulers during the struggle for independence. These observations of the Supreme Court need to be welcomed wholeheartedly as the Shaheen Bagh protests do not come under the definition of “the right to assemble peaceably and without arms”

The executive, legislative and judiciary are three branches that keep our vibrant democracy functioning and the observations made by the Supreme Court on the administration and law enforcement agencies will need to be taken constructively and in the right spirit. The Supreme Court observed that the administration ought to take action to keep the area clear of encroachments and obstruction without hiding behind court orders to carry out administrative functions.

At the outset, Delhi Police needs to be commended for acting with restraint in spite of the provocative nature of the protests at Shaheen Bagh. It would be unfair to state that the administrators were hiding behind court orders.  The appointment of interlocutors by the Supreme Court to speak to the protestors gave credence to the matter being sub judice. This denied law enforcement agencies the credibility to engage with the protestors to clear the public spaces and relocate them to a designated protest site. A key takeaway from this judgment for law enforcement agencies would be to act quickly and decisively when protests cause public inconvenience for protracted periods of time.

Overall the judgment lays down a framework for future protests and has important lessons for both law enforcement agencies and protestors, political parties and humanitarian organisations that organize such protests.