Introduction

Right to protest and Article 19 of our constitution are like two wheels of a chariot; one simply cannot continue without the other in this country. Peaceful protests are a symbol of any free and prosperous democracy. People have the right to express their disagreements and to oppose the actions of the state. Protests, disagreements, and
debates are run in parallel and are a cohesive force within a democracy. They work continuously in tandem to strike a balance between democratic law and our limited rights.When a community or individual goes up to protest, they usually express their disapproval or opposition to any action, policy, statement et cetera of the state or government or any other organisation. The protests are mainly driven by political waves that show the people’s movement to hold the government or the country accountable for their problems and to take steps to overcome them. Protests often work in two ways, firstly, helping the community or a group or individual to express their disagreement with the policy in question and second, helping the government identify gaps in its culture or actions and work to improve them.
If a protester is within his or her constitutional rights to organise a peaceful protest then he or she is equally entitled to receive a directional legal order denying his or her right to protest. One always runs the risk of being punished for disobeying it. Wherever there is a right there is a duty. Constitutional, in all its magnanimity,
recognises the right to raise the voice against authorities but with this right comes a duty that this right mustn’t be exercised to such an extent which may cause more unnecessary schisms and chasms in the society or worse sow the seeds of anarchy altogether. And it is for this reason that limitations are to be put on such activities.
The entire discourse revolves around a line in the sand which everyone marks differently according to their own beliefs.

Reflection on Legal Provisions

Protests in this country have increased to such an extent that their occurrence hardly ever becomes a talking point for long because the moment one protest gains ground some other protest overshadows the former. Of late, we have seen how the mob has vehemently expressed its views on the streets demanding the government to
reconsider the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and the National Register of Citizens altogether. All such protests are a symbol of a great free republican society that we have established, which aims at achieving an end goal of getting the message across so that it is heard by those sitting in the highest firmaments of political
hierarchy. With this, further decisions are made only after due consultation of the ground level leaders. For this reason, the right to freedom of speech, association and peaceful assembly is essential. Any uncontrolled restriction on the exercise of these rights – for example, the imposition of Section 144 – indicates the government’s inability to tolerate disputes which tars the repute of the government. Such protest does not reflect the human tendency to commit violence but rather the government’s failure to communicate or listen.

India has a tumultuous history of protests from the pre-independence times. Even after independence our nation has witnessed many protests. In 1952, the Andhra Movement, led by Potti Sriramulu, sought a separate Telegu-based government. In recent years there have been several internationally recognized protests against Anti Corruption Protest (2011), Nirbhaya Protest (2012), and CAA Protest (2019-Present). The part three of the Constitution gives us a list of fundamental rights. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution strongly protects our right to protest. Article 19 (1) (a) states, “All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”, Article 19 (1) (b) states, “All citizens shall have the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” and Article 19 (1) (c) ) states, “All citizens shall have the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.” It should be noted that these rights are not absolute, i.e. the authorities may impose certain limitations on the
above-mentioned rights.
In addition to granting these basic rights, Article 19 also provides for certain restrictions that the authorities may impose on these rights. Article 19 (2) states, “Nothing in subsection (a) of sub-clause (1) shall affect the application of any existing law, or prohibit the state from enacting any law, until such law limits the exercise of the right conferred on it by this clause. to seek [Indian sovereignty and integrity,] State security, foreign relations, social order, morality or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, degrading or inciting.” Article 19 (3) states, “ Nothing in subsection (b) of this clause shall affect the application of any law to the present as it sets out, or prohibits the state from enacting legislation, so that [Indian sovereignty and integrity or] public order , restrictions on the exercise of a right granted by this clause. ”And Article 19 (4) states, “Nothing in subsection (c) of this clause shall affect the application of any law to the present which imposes, or precludes the State from enacting any prescribed law, for the benefit of [the sovereignty and integrity of India or ] social or moral order, the limits to the exercise of the right provided by this clause.” The Supreme Court has reiterated time and time again that all citizens have a fundamental right to assemble and protest which cannot be removed from arbitrary executive or legislative action. One of the finest jurists that India has produced, 3 former Chief Justice of India P.N. Bhagwati has stated :
“if democracy means the govt. of the people, on the part of the people, it’s obvious that every citizen must have the right to participate in the democratic process & allow him to intelligently exercise his rights to make a choice, a free & general discussion of public issues is absolutely essential.”4
Such statements buttress the virtue of constitutional principles by upholding people’s rights but nonetheless if reasonable brakes are not applied to these thriving rights then the governing machinery will become ramshackle.

Suggestions and Conclusion

Despite all what Article 19 provides specifically to maintain a balance between the government and the governed there can be better ways of achieving the same. One would be to unclog the the communication channel between the National/State government and the mob. If these communication lines are cleansed and overhauled then eventually the protests would reduce but because no steps have been taken in that direction the petitions hang fire over a long period of time. One way of doing it would be to conduct regional surveys over a contentious bill and then deduce an approval percentage from the same. Though the parliamentarians are considered best to assess what is a boon or a bane for the nation, it is the common man that the government connects the best with whenever a raw nerve is touched.

Apart from that states should have some battalions specially trained and equipped to deal with mobs. In times of severe civil violence, the armed forces of the state are 5 not enough to deal with such situations. State armed police are currently facing staff shortages, as well as humiliating lack of training and equipment, forcing state governments to seek help from the Centre. Come what may, the state and central forces must remember to serve and protect all citizens by not resorting to pellet guns and water cannons impetuously which only increases the repugnancy among citizens towards the authority. By working to resolve problems arising from unethical policing, citizens can be confident that even if public protests turn violent, police forces will restore the lost public order in a legal manner.

SUBMITTED BY

By Adit Sharma1