Context: The Delhi Police denied permission to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar on October 10, citing short notice. The organisers argued that permission had been sought on October 7, three days before the protest, while police guidelines require applications at least 10 days in advance.
- The protest concerned alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise and demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
- The issue raises questions about the constitutional right to peaceful protest, police discretion and remedies against denial of permission.
Constitutional Right to Protest
- Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 19(1)(b): Guarantees the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
- Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression on specified grounds, including public order.
- Article 19(3): Permits reasonable restrictions on peaceful assembly in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order.
- Supreme Court position: The right to protest is a fundamental right but is not absolute; it must be balanced against public order, traffic management, residents’ rights and other legitimate public interests.
Supreme Court Judgments on Public Protests
- Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court balanced citizens’ right to protest with residents’ rights to peaceful enjoyment of public spaces, directing authorities to regulate demonstrations appropriately.
- Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re (2012): The Court stressed that preventive measures affecting peaceful assemblies must be exercised cautiously, with due regard to fundamental rights and public order.
- Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961): Recognised the right of affected persons to challenge an order restricting assembly before the appropriate Magistrate.
Delhi Police Guidelines for Protests at Jantar Mantar
- Application procedure: Applications should ordinarily be submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) at least 10 days before the proposed demonstration; later applications may be considered depending on the availability of space and circumstances.
- Assessment criteria: Applications are examined on a first-come, first-served basis, with scrutiny by the Special Branch, traffic police and the relevant district police.
- Public interest considerations: Authorities assess traffic disruption, public safety, the likelihood of obstruction and risks to public tranquillity.
- Conditions and revocation: Permission may be subject to conditions and can be revoked due to unforeseen developments, VIP security requirements or intelligence inputs.
- Limits on discretion: The article argues that the 10-day requirement should not automatically justify rejecting every late application; authorities must consider the circumstances and provide a reasoned decision.
What Can Organisers Do If Permission Is Denied?
- Seek reconsideration: Organisers may approach the police again, request reconsideration, address the stated objections or propose a smaller gathering, shorter duration or alternative venue.
- Demand written reasons: Under the guidelines described in the article, refusal or revocation should be supported by recorded reasons and communicated to the organisers.
- Approach the Delhi High Court: If the denial is arbitrary, discriminatory or inconsistent with the constitutional right to peaceful assembly, organisers may seek judicial review under Article 226.
- Challenge prohibitory orders: An organiser may challenge a prohibitory order through the applicable statutory procedure or seek judicial review, depending on the nature of the order and the governing law.
Prohibitory Orders: Legal Framework
- Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue urgent orders to prevent or address specified dangers, including obstruction, injury, danger to human life or disturbance of public tranquillity. It is the successor to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Scope of restrictions: Such orders may restrict certain assemblies or activities when the statutory conditions are met; they must not be used mechanically to suppress legitimate dissent.
- Opportunity to challenge: Under Section 163(5), an aggrieved person may apply to the issuing Magistrate to rescind or alter the order. Section 163(7) requires the Magistrate to provide an opportunity to appear and explain the application; rejection must be supported by written reasons.
- Constitutional safeguards: The Supreme Court has emphasised that restrictions on assembly must be proportionate, justified by the circumstances and subject to judicial scrutiny.
Key Legal Principle: Regulation, Not Suppression
- Permission is not an absolute veto: The requirement of prior permission may be justified for managing public spaces, but it should not become an automatic means of rejecting every protest.
- Reasonable alternatives: Authorities should consider alternative venues, timings, gathering sizes and other proportionate measures instead of imposing blanket restrictions.
- Accountability: Police decisions must be based on legitimate public-order concerns, supported by reasons and open to appropriate legal challenges.
