When courts define protest and patriot

The Bombay HC’s ruling on the Gaza protest undermines citizens’ rights, amounts to gratuitous advice

The Bombay High Court’s reasons in support of the denial of permission to hold a meeting in Mumbai’s Azad Maidan are strange and go against principles that govern the matter. Mumbai Police had rejected an organisation’s request for permission to stage a protest against Israeli atrocities in Gaza. The police did so on the ground that the protest was against the country’s foreign policy and would create a law and order situation. This was a wrong and untenable contention because citizens have the right to oppose the country’s foreign policy. The grounds cited by the High Court, in an appeal made against the decision, are more problematic.

The court told the CPI(M), which filed the appeal, that the party should focus on issues that affect India, instead of being “short-sighted” about its topics of interest. Though short-sightedness means an inability to see things at a distance, the court chose the word to critique the party’s concern over the developments in Gaza. “Look at your own country. Be patriots... Speak up for the causes in our own country,” it told the CPI(M). The HC reminded the party that it was registered in India, and suggested that it could take up issues such as pollution, garbage dumping, flooding, and illegal parking. Questioning the logic of protesting on “something happening thousands of miles outside the country” amounts to questioning the party’s patriotism. The court accepted the police’s position and even felt the matter should be left to the Ministry of External Affairs.

It is difficult to imagine that a court would cite such grounds to reject a petition and question the petitioner. The court should have had clarity that citizens have the right to question any policy of the government and the freedom to hold a meeting to protest the policy. The right to hold a meeting peacefully is guaranteed under the Constitution, and a court cannot deny that by blindly accepting the reasons cited by the police. Every reason given by the court, other than the one on the party’s locus standi, is contentious. It should be noted that in the perception of the police and the court, protesting against Israel’s atrocities was to go against the foreign policy adopted by India. Courts should not give parties gratuitous advice on patriotism and the issues they should take up for protest. When they do so, they invite criticism that they align with the government’s positions. Their commitment should be to the Constitution, and not to the government.