Published On: October 15, 2026
Authored By: Vaidehi Pandey
University of Nottingham
A democracy is often defined by the phrase “by the people, for the people, of the people”. The right to protest is a fundamental right of India’s citizens, protected by its Constitution. This right was challenged in June 2026, when hunger strikes and protests demanding action on the NEET leaks began. The “Chalo Sansad” movement halted at Jantar Mantar, a tourist spot in Delhi, which served as the base for the protest. On July 20th, conflict arose between protestors and local authorities. Footage from the site shows police using tear gas, firearms, pellet guns and lathis to remove protestors from the location. To avoid such conflict in the future, on August 3rd, the Supreme Court of India asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to consult the Union government authorities before approaching the Court regarding a petition that claims Jantar Mantar was not the “right location” for protests.[1] The reasoning is that the Court is trying to balance freedom of speech with public order and to prevent such conflict from recurring. However, this raises the question: is the State’s reliance on restrictive protest sites a breach of India’s fundamental rights and the constitutional promise regarding protest? And does the current approach of containing conflict align with the constitutional liberty owed to those subject to authority?
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees all citizens the freedom of speech and expression. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India,[2] two women were arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for posting a Facebook comment about a local shutdown. The Supreme Court ruled that the provision violated the fundamental right to speech. Similarly, the protest on July 20th was the youth’s attempt to express dissent towards the Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, and to demand accountability. In keeping with Article 19(1)(b), the youth assembled peacefully and retained their composure until Sonam Wangchuk, an activist fasting for accountability, was removed from the protest site by Delhi Police on July 18, 2026.[3] On July 20th, when the youth began their march towards Parliament, it was met with barricades and police officers armed with lathis, pellet guns, tear gas and AK-47s. Under Article 19(3) of the Constitution, regulation is permitted; prohibition, however, triggers constitutional repercussions. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India,[4] the Supreme Court ruled that the authorities cannot place blanket restrictions on peaceful assemblies without concrete justification.
Whether a regulation was required is assessed through the proportionality test. To evaluate the police’s decision in the Jantar Mantar circumstances, the four-fold proportionality test from Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Puttaswamy I)[5] will be used. The first stage questions whether the action was sanctioned by law; Delhi Police maintained that the protest was not sanctioned under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) due to a lack of permission. The second and third limbs question whether the restriction was necessary for a legitimate aim and to what extent it was proportionate. Limb two is satisfied because Delhi Police aimed to maintain public order, and large protests can cause traffic disruptions, conflict among people and threats of violence. In In re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4/5.06.2011 v. Home Secretary, Union of India,[6] the police used brutal force such as tear gas, lathis and water cannons on sleeping protestors. The Supreme Court held that the sleeping, defenceless citizens did not pose any threat to public peace. Similarly, the protestors at Jantar Mantar maintained that the protest would be peaceful, and none of them carried any firearm or weapon. Even assuming that intervention was necessary, to what extent was it proportionate?
The police personnel carried firearms, electric batons, pellet guns and tear gas to restrict a protest that could have been managed through reasonable time restrictions, diverted traffic, controlled entry and exit points and limits on the number of protestors.[7] Hence, while the aim of maintaining public order is recognised, the fact that multiple other methods of maintaining it were available must be considered. The extent of interference was, in fact, excessive compared to the threat posed by the protestors, as none of them carried firearms.
Finally, the last limb of proportionality asks whether procedural safeguards against abuse were present. In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal,[8] the Supreme Court mandated that all police personnel carrying out public actions, detentions or arrests must display clear, visible identification and name tags to ensure accountability. This requirement is also reflected in the BNSS. News reports and multiple other pieces of evidence provided by the youth present at Jantar Mantar during the protest show police officers assaulting citizens without their badges on. The landmark case aimed to establish accountability and provide a safeguard to the citizens of the country; however, these actions disregarded it. Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, protects a person from being deprived of their life. Article 19 protects the right to protest, while Article 21 protects the person exercising that right. Article 21 protects the right to bodily integrity, personal liberty and protection against arbitrary detention and force. The assault injured multiple youth and police personnel; hence, the primary safeguard, accountability, was not present when the youth were brutally assaulted. Only some photos and videos managed to come online.
Multiple pieces of evidence were either taken down from the media or denied from being posted. Social media was a primary mode of communication during the protest, with support flooding in from apps like Instagram, X and Snapchat, and even gaming platforms like Roblox; however, on the day of the protest, the internet at Jantar Mantar was shut down. In the landmark case Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India,[9] the Supreme Court held that the State may impose restrictions under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only where valid reasons and material facts are provided for doing so. While public disorder is a valid ground for imposing restrictions on a protest, the shutdown of the internet during a protest seems disproportionate to the grounds on which state intervention was made. The internet now facilitates speech and expression. Protests are no longer just physical; online presence is a crucial element of speech for the youth of India.
Therefore, when considering the proportionality between the constitutional expectation and the reality of the protest on July 20th, the question of constitutional dilution arises. Restrictions on protest sites are permitted to maintain public order, and they are a recognised and proportionate response in principle, but the constitutional danger that arises from such a decision is the containment of dissent. The police are often considered the backbone of society, relied upon for safety; however, excessive force was used to contain a conflict that would not have arisen had protection been valued over confrontation. While the police intervention was proportionate to the aim of avoiding public disorder, the requirement of safety towards protestors was overlooked.
When the integrity of India’s rights is compromised, the Supreme Court is approached for resolution. Procedural accuracy is crucial within the established system. On July 22nd, the Chief Justice of India refused to watch videos of the demonstration,[10] primarily on the basis that no official petition had been filed and only a lawyer’s representation was received. When the issue was revisited on July 28th, 2026, the Court found that police excesses during the student protest prima facie warranted an independent and impartial investigation. This decision demonstrated that accountability depends upon preserving the evidentiary trail of the State’s action; hence the Court ordered that all evidence, such as CCTV footage, drone footage, body-camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records and PCR logs, be preserved while it is being reviewed. Additionally, the Court directed that detained minors be released.
Although this intervention demonstrates that the Court will provide constitutional safeguards when the system does not, it is a response made as a reaction rather than as a prevention. Judicial review is an essential safeguard, but it cannot substitute for constitutional compliance when state power is exercised. If it was established that the police would barricade Jantar Mantar, why weren’t extensive brutality tools like pellet guns,[11] tear gas and electric batons prohibited? Why weren’t police officials briefed on the importance of accountability? The Court’s decision on August 3rd to consider Jantar Mantar a suitable protest site regardless of the July 20th protest illustrates the constitutional tension at the heart of the dispute. Public order may require regulation, but relocating dissent cannot become a substitute for accommodating dissent. Furthermore, the Constitution does not promise a democracy free of dissent; in fact, dissent is the proof of life in a democracy, as the Constitution promises citizens the freedom of expression. Public order may justify regulating the manner in which that dissent occurs, but it cannot justify making dissent invisible. The Supreme Court’s intervention demonstrates that India’s constitutional framework remains capable of protecting that freedom. The greater concern lies in whether citizens should have to approach the Court for protection that they should already have received. If protest is permitted only in particular locations at certain times and is met with force as soon as it becomes slightly disruptive, then the question is no longer where dissent may occur, but whether dissent is genuinely free for all. A democracy does not protect the right to protest by deciding where dissent may be contained; it protects it by ensuring that dissent can still be heard.
References
[1] ‘Supreme Court agrees to examine PIL seeking alternative to Jantar Mantar as protest venue’ The Hindu (2026) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-agrees-to-examine-pil-seeking-alternative-to-jantar-mantar-as-protest-venue/article71300128.ece>.
[2] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1.
[3] ‘Sonam Wangchuk Removed from Jantar Mantar: A timeline of his hunger strike’ NDTV (18 July 2026) <https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/sonam-wangchuk-removed-from-jantar-mantar-a-timeline-of-his-hunger-strike-11787274>.
[4] Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) 17 SCC 324.
[5] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[6] In re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4/5.06.2011 v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 1.
[7] ‘Delhi Police puts blockades at Jantar Mantar ahead of CJP’s protest march to Parliament’ ThePrint (2026) <https://theprint.in/india/delhi-police-puts-blockades-jantar-mantar-ahead-of-cjps-protest-march-to-parliament/2990640/>.
[8] D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416.
[9] Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637.
[10] ‘“Don’t Have Time to Watch Videos”: Supreme Court Declines Plea for Suo Motu Action on Jantar Mantar Protest’ Times of India (22 July 2026) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/dont-have-time-to-watch-videos-supreme-court-declines-plea-for-suo-motu-action-on-jantar-mantar-protest/articleshow/132552102.cms>.
[11] Geeta Pandey, ‘India’s “cockroach” protesters have wounds consistent with pellet-gun fire, say experts’ BBC News (1 August 2026) <https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74gwvygkjdo>.
