When Dissent Becomes a Human Rights Question: The Constitutional Right to Protest in India

This Blog is Written by Krishna Gupta, 4th Year, BA LLB, V.S.S.D. P.G. College, Kanpur & Rimjhim Pandey, 4th Year, BA LLB, V.S.S.D. P.G. College, Kanpur.

Blog 25 | Edition VII

A protest is often described as a disruption. Roads are blocked, slogans fill public spaces, and governments are forced to confront voices that they may otherwise prefer to ignore. But in a constitutional democracy, protest is more than public disagreement. It is one of the ways through which citizens participate in democracy itself. The recent youth-led protests in Delhi over alleged examination irregularities have once again brought this question into sharp focus: when does the State’s responsibility to maintain public order begin to conflict with the citizen’s right to dissent? The events surrounding the July 20, 2026 protest near Parliament have raised serious concerns about the use of force against demonstrators. Amnesty International reported allegations of excessive police force, including batons and tear gas, as well as restrictions affecting protesters’ movement and access to public spaces. Human Rights Watch similarly called for an investigation into the use of tear gas and batons during the demonstrations. The issue, therefore, cannot simply be reduced to whether a protest was inconvenient or whether some individuals may have crossed legal boundaries. The larger question is whether the State’s response to dissent remains lawful, necessary and proportionate.

Protest Is Not a Privilege Granted by the State

The Constitution does not expressly use the phrase “right to protest”. However, the freedom to protest emerges from the combined protection of Article 19, particularly the freedoms of speech and expression and peaceful assembly. This constitutional protection is not absolute. Reasonable restrictions may be imposed in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, public order and other constitutionally recognised grounds. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that demonstrations cannot become a licence for violence, destruction of property or serious obstruction of other citizens’ rights. There is an important distinction, between regulating a protest and suppressing dissent. A requirement that authorities manage traffic establish safety arrangements or prevent violence can be legitimate. The difficulty arises when administrative permission becomes a mechanism through which authorities decide whether citizens are entitled to express opposition all. I think that the right to protest should not become dependent upon obtaining permission from the authorities against whom citizens may be protesting. CJP itself recently raised this concern arguing that the right to protest should not become dependent upon obtaining permission from the very authorities against whom citizens may be protesting.

The Delhi Protests and the Question of Police Force

The recent protests were connected with demands for accountability over alleged examination paper leaks and concerns affecting students. The demonstrations attracted significant participation from young people. The fight that happened on July 20 soon became a matter. The Supreme Court has now ordered the release of students under 18 who were arrested or held during the protests. The Supreme Court also sent out notices about the claims of police brutality and the use of much force. What matters more is that the Supreme Court has set up a powerful enquiry committee. This committee is led by former Supreme Court judge Justice R. Subhash Reddy. The committee will look into everything that happened during the Parliament march. This includes the claims of police brutality and the claims that there was violence during the protest. I believe this judicial intervention is very important. We cannot let accountability depend on the different stories people tell right after a fight. When people claim there was force we need an independent look, at the facts. We must check the video evidence the records, the police instructions and the real reasons why the force was used.

Public Order Cannot Become a Blanket Justification

I think the State has a duty to protect public order. Protesters do not gain immunity from criminal law simply because they are part of a demonstration. At the time I believe public order cannot be used as a blanket excuse for every restriction, on dissent. International human rights principles recognise assembly as a fundamental democratic freedom. The core principle is necessity and proportionality. Authorities should use the least restrictive measures that can reasonably address the real threat. This distinction matters. If a peaceful gathering can be managed by dialogue, designated spaces, crowd‑management measures and reasonable restrictions it becomes hard to justify the use of force.. If real violence threatens lives or serious property damage authorities may have to intervene. The question should never be simply "Was force used?" It should be, "Was the force lawful necessary, proportionate and directed toward an objective?”

The Human Rights Dimension

Human rights are tested severely when governments confront people who disagree with them. I have seen that human rights are tested severely when governments confront people who disagree with them. I believe freedom of expression is meaningful when freedom of expression protects unpopular opinions. I believe freedom of assembly matters precisely because freedom of assembly allows people to gather against decisions taken by those in power. The Supreme Court’s continuing examination of the Delhi protests demonstrates why institutional accountability is necessary. I have seen the Supreme Court also deal with concerns surrounding the treatment of students arrested or detained during the demonstrations while the government has indicated commitments regarding action against student protesters. There is also a concern. Young people protesting over examinations are not merely making a statement. I know that examination results determine access to education, employment and economic mobility, for many of them. When allegations of irregularities arise, demanding accountability is itself a form of democratic participation.

A Democracy Must Have Space for Dissent

The real measure of a democracy is not how comfortably it accommodates agreement, but how peacefully it accommodates disagreement. I think the State must protect order yet the State must also protect the constitutional space where citizens can question the State. Protesters must remain peaceful and answer for conduct; authorities must remain restrained, transparent and answer for excessive action. I believe the answer therefore is not to romanticise every protest or condemn every police intervention. It is to insist upon discipline on both sides. I think a democracy should not fear a citizen holding a placard raising a slogan or demanding an answer. A democracy should fear a situation where citizens start to think that speaking against power carries a price. The recent protests have therefore left a question than the immediate dispute over examinations: Can dissent remain a protected democratic right when it becomes inconvenient to those, in power? The constitutional answer must stay clear. Yes, only when both the State and the citizen stay within the boundaries of law. That balance is not a weakness of democracy. It is what democracy should look like.

(Write to the authors at drkrishnagupta1255@gmail.com & rimjhimpandey2004@gmail.com.)