Courts uphold protest rights, but police clamp down on dissent

Recent court rulings reaffirm citizens’ right to protest, challenging the criminalisation of dissent

Last month, a woman died in a Mumbai suburb after she was not transferred to an advanced centre for treatment. The suburban hospital had an ambulance, but that fateful day it was assigned to Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde's convoy.

Did this gross misuse of scarce public resources by those supposed to serve the people provoke a spontaneous outpouring of anger? Not at all. Ultimately, this woman paid with her life for the State's criminal negligence. Hers was not a one-off case; others in the suburb continue to suffer due to the abysmal conditions at local hospitals. 

A question often asked is: why doesn't India see the kind of massive, yet peaceful, street protests witnessed in the West? Just last month, millions were out across the United States, telling their president that he was no king. France saw an outpouring in September against its new government.

Perhaps the strongest reason for the lack of a nationwide expression of anger in a peaceful manner on the streets despite the wretched conditions most Indians live in, is the vastness and diversity of the country. That makes centralised, planned protests impossible. Another reason is fear. 

Not everyone has the stomach for a lathi-charge, the standard response of our police to street protests, unless the protesters have political support or belong to Hindutva groups.  In post-2014 ‘New India’, the State goes one step further against protesters:  it turns them into offenders.

Consider this: angered by the authorities' reneging on their promise not to demolish a 125-year-old bridge in Mumbai until those living around it were provided alternate homes, the residents decided to block the demolition squad's path. But they had to drop their plan after police warned them of legal action if they interfered.

On November 9, some of Delhi's residents were detained after they gathered at the capital’s most iconic public space to protest air pollution in their city. Bengaluru saw an absurd drama play out. In its obsession with keeping the roads free of protests, the police told residents who’d come out in a human chain holding placards against their pothole-ridden roads, that they could either move to the designated protest site, which was far away, or protest inside their colonies! That’s where the human chains were eventually formed — inside their society premises!

This herding of protesters into a designated space, where they can, after taking police permission, protest to their hearts’ content without being seen or heard by the public, is the norm in all our metros.

Given this backdrop, it seems hardly believable that four judgments — one of them from the Supreme Court — in the last six months have upheld the right to protest and quashed cases against protesters facing charges that included unlawful assembly, causing obstruction, and assault on public servants.

The first judgment came from the Rajasthan High Court. About 700 farmers had protested on the highway against a last-minute change in the venue of a meeting on water allocation. ‘Not every assembly is unlawful…Preventing citizens from holding a peaceful protest through force or coercion cannot be justified. If simply opposing an officer’s decision results in the registration of a criminal case, it reflects a mindset reminiscent of British colonial rule but surely not the spirit of a free, democratic nation,’ the judgment read.

The second came from the Telangana High Court, where the judge concluded that continuing with criminal proceedings against students who had demonstrated against sudden changes to the criteria for police recruitment would amount to a ‘misuse of legal process’.

The third judgment was from the Supreme Court, which held that a rally of teachers led by the head of their institution, demanding fee reimbursements due from the Andhra Pradesh government, was not unlawful, but was ‘exercising (the) right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully.’

The most significant, perhaps, is the latest order from a sessions court in Maharashtra, which acquitted villagers who had locked up three officials in their office, as they were fed up with the State’s failure to provide clean drinking water despite repeated promises. ‘The accused were agitating for a basic human necessity,’ said the court, concluding that their conduct, ‘was consistent with civic protest.’

‘Expression of anguish for livelihood cannot be criminalised... this isn’t the Raj, this is a Republic.’ These words by the Rajasthan High Court could be the anthem of all citizens wanting to protest, but afraid to do so. Alas, judgments are hardly read by ordinary people. It’s bureaucrats who read them, but many of them are notoriously deaf and thick-skinned. Will these words be taken seriously by the Union home minister and his police?

Jyoti Punwani is a senior journalist. 

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH)