Modi government should play by the rules, not misuse power against citizens | The Hindu editorial
The events surrounding the October 10 protest have reignited debate over the constitutional right to peaceful assembly and the limits of state power. As thousands of activists, students, political leaders and protesters faced detentions, travel restrictions and security measures, questions have been raised about democratic freedoms, preventive policing and the protection of fundamental rights.
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
Recent events surrounding the October 10 protests have sparked debate over the constitutional right to peaceful assembly versus the state's use of preventive policing. The detention of activists and implementation of security measures have raised significant questions about democratic freedoms and the protection of fundamental rights in India.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The core of this debate revolves around of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, or public order. The editorial highlights the tension between exercising these fundamental rights and the state's imposition of restrictions. UPSC aspirants must understand the delicate balance the judiciary maintains between protecting democratic dissent and allowing the state to maintain public order. Analyzing Supreme Court judgments, such as the case or the protests judgment, which delineate the contours of peaceful protest and state action, is crucial for Mains answers.
Governance
The article questions the state's use of preventive policing and detentions to manage protests. The power of the state to detain individuals to prevent them from committing a cognizable offense or acting in a manner prejudicial to public order is rooted in laws like the (now transitioning to the ) and various preventive detention laws like the . The governance challenge lies in ensuring these powers are not misused to stifle legitimate political dissent or curb the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under . UPSC candidates should critically evaluate the procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention, such as the role of advisory boards, and the constitutional guarantee under against arrest and detention in certain cases. The focus should be on how the state must act proportionately and reasonably.
Internal Security
From a security perspective, managing large-scale protests requires careful handling to prevent them from turning violent or disrupting critical infrastructure. State authorities often employ measures like imposing travel restrictions, deploying security forces, or enforcing Section 144 of the (or its equivalent in new laws) to restrict gatherings. While maintaining law and order is a primary state duty, the excessive use of force or preemptive restrictions can exacerbate tensions. The challenge for security agencies is to employ intelligence gathering and crowd management techniques that are democratic and respect human rights, rather than resorting to blanket bans or mass detentions. For UPSC, understanding the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for crowd control and the principles of minimum use of force is essential for addressing internal security and disaster management questions.