UPSC Mains
GS Paper II
Fundamental Rights & Constitutional Bodies
Anti-CEC Protests and the Right to Peaceful Assembly
Nearly 2,500 protesters were detained in Delhi as they tried to reach Jantar Mantar to demand the exit of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities, amid an Internet shutdown and wide transport curbs
PROTESTERS DETAINED IN DELHI
Nearly 2,500
PROHIBITORY ORDERS
Section 163 BNSS, 2023
REMOVAL OF CEC (ARTICLE 324(5))
Like a Supreme Court judge
📰
Why in News?
- Nearly 2,500 protesters were detained in Delhi as they tried to reach Jantar Mantar to demand the exit of CEC Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral irregularities.
- The authorities imposed an Internet shutdown and wide transport curbs, which has raised questions about the limits of the right to protest.
📰
Source: The Hindu
✊
About the Right to Protest
- The right to protest is not named in the Constitution but flows from Article 19(1)(a) (speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (assembling peaceably and without arms).
- It is subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), including public order.
- Under Article 324(5), the CEC can be removed only in the manner of a Supreme Court judge, which protects the office from executive pressure.
Three Main Tools to Manage Protests
- Prohibitory orders: It can issue prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS, 2023, which replaced Section 144 CrPC.
- Section 163 BNSS, 2023: It empowers Magistrates to issue urgent prohibitory orders to prevent public nuisance, danger to life, riots, and disturbances of public peace.
- Preventive arrests: It can make preventive arrests under Section 170 BNSS.
- Telecom suspension: It can suspend telecom services under Section 20 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
📰
Source: The Hindu
📜
Provisions
- Articles 21 and 22: They protect personal liberty and provide safeguards on arrest and detention.
- Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court held that a blanket ban on protests at Jantar Mantar is impermissible.
- Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020): The Court ruled that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely and protests must be held at designated sites.
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): The Court held that Internet shutdowns must be proportionate, time-bound and issued through published orders.
📰
Source: The Hindu
⚖️
Arguments For and Against the Restrictions
For — Public Order
The state must maintain public order when a very large crowd is expected in a high-security zone.
For — Prevention
Preventive steps can stop gatherings from turning violent.
Against — Site Blocked
Blocking the designated protest site itself denies the right rather than regulating it.
Against — Blanket Measures
Blanket measures such as shutting the Metro and cutting the Internet burden citizens unconnected to the protest and may fail the proportionality test.
📰
Source: The Hindu
🎯
Significance
- Peaceful protest lets citizens voice grievances between elections and keeps democracy participatory.
- The episode tests the proportionality doctrine applied to restrictions on fundamental rights.
- Concerns about the Election Commission touch free and fair elections, a part of the basic structure.
- The CJI’s intervention shows the judiciary acting as a check on executive action.
📰
Source: The Hindu
⚠️
Challenges
Competing Rights
Authorities must balance protesters’ rights against those of residents, traders and commuters.
Internet Shutdowns
Internet shutdowns carry high economic costs and block accurate information along with rumours.
Mass Preventive Detention
Mass preventive detention lacks transparency and is hard to challenge in real time.
Institutional Credibility
Unaddressed allegations against a constitutional body can erode institutional credibility.
📰
Source: The Hindu
🛤️
Way Forward
Least-Restrictive Means
Restrictions should follow the least-restrictive means principle and target specific threats.
Shutdown Orders
Shutdown orders should be time-bound, published and reviewed.
Article 22 Safeguard
Detainees must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, as Article 22 requires.
Transparent Mechanisms
Allegations about elections should be addressed through transparent institutional mechanisms, while organisers keep protests peaceful.
Conclusion: The Delhi restrictions highlight the need to balance public order with the right to protest. Restrictions should be fair, transparent, and proportionate, while public grievances should be addressed through proper channels.
📰
Source: The Hindu
