Protecting protest: On mass protests
Protests that inconvenience people must not be confused with violence
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The editorial examines the Supreme Court's ongoing hearings regarding alleged disproportionate use of force by police during recent protests. It highlights the tension between the constitutional right to protest and the state's responsibility to maintain public order, emphasizing the need for standardized, proportional crowd-control protocols across states.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The fundamental tension highlighted in this editorial is between the right to freedom of speech and expression under and the right to assemble peaceably without arms under , versus the state's power to impose reasonable restrictions under and in the interests of public order. The Chief Justice of India's remark that protests must occur "with due permission and at designated places" reflects a conservative interpretation of these rights, prioritizing public order and administrative convenience. However, the editorial argues that the democratic essence of a protest is to challenge and inconvenience the state, and requiring prior permission risks stifling this core function. For UPSC, understanding this balance is crucial; the Supreme Court, in cases like the (Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police), has recognized the right to protest but also emphasized that it cannot lead to indefinite occupation of public spaces, highlighting the principle of proportionality in restricting fundamental rights.
Governance
The editorial raises significant concerns regarding police reforms and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for crowd control. Since 'Police' and 'Public Order' are State subjects under the , there is a lack of uniform protocols across India regarding the escalation of force. The editorial points out that poorly equipped police are more prone to using excessive force out of fear, contradicting international best practices which mandate graduated responses (using minimum necessary force and escalating only when required). The suggestion for a national protocol for crowd control is a key governance reform. This protocol should standardize thresholds for using high-impact measures, mandate documentation of lathi charges, ensure immediate medical assistance, and require independent inquiries into serious injuries. This aligns with long-standing recommendations for police reforms, such as those from the , which aim to make the police more accountable and professional rather than functioning merely as an instrument of state coercion.
Internal Security
From an internal security perspective, managing mass protests without escalating them into widespread violence is a critical challenge. The editorial notes that the government's underestimation of the agitation and subsequent reliance on forceful suppression backfired, leading to entrenched anger and wider disruption. This illustrates a failure in intelligence gathering and proactive engagement. Effective crowd management requires a shift from a purely coercive approach to one of negotiation and de-escalation. The allegations of police using disproportionate force (such as firing assault rifles or using nail-studded lathis) not only violate human rights but also damage the legitimacy of the state and can radicalize peaceful movements. Conversely, the claims of police personnel being assaulted highlight the volatile nature of such situations. Therefore, ensuring adequate protective gear for law enforcement and implementing strict protocols for the use of non-lethal weapons (like tear gas or water cannons) are essential components of maintaining internal security while upholding democratic rights.