The Right to Protest and the Right to Live in Peace : Liberty, Responsibility and National Interest

Advocate Amrit Lal Saha

October 20, 2026   

The right to protest is an indispensable feature of democracy. It enables citizens to challenge governmental decisions, expose injustice, demand accountability and express dissent without resorting to violence. Many significant political and social reforms throughout history have been achieved through peaceful public movements.
Yet a fundamental question confronts every democracy: can the exercise of one person's fundamental right be permitted to seriously impair the rights of thousands of other citizens who do not participate in that protest?
A patient unable to reach a hospital, a daily wage earner deprived of earnings, a student unable to attend an examination, or a small trader prevented from accessing a marketplace may have little connection with the cause being championed. Why should such citizens be compelled to bear a disproportionate burden for a movement they have neither organised nor joined?
The answer is not to prohibit protests. Nor is it to place every demonstration beyond governmental regulation.
The right to protest is a democratic freedom, not an unlimited licence to obstruct public life. The power to regulate protest is a governmental responsibility, not a licence to suppress dissent.
1. India's constitutional guarantee
The Constitution of India protects freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms under Article 19(1)(b). These freedoms enable citizens to challenge the government and demand changes in public policy.
However, these rights are not absolute. Articles 19(2) and 19(3) permit reasonable restrictions on their respective constitutional grounds. Peaceful assembly is protected, but it does not confer an unconditional right to occupy every public place at any time and for any duration.
In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973), the Supreme Court recognised the authority of the State to regulate public meetings on streets, while rejecting arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights.
The principle is significant because the administration cannot be given an unrestricted power to grant or refuse permission. Regulation must have a lawful basis and adequate safeguards against arbitrary decision-making.
Thus, constitutional democracy demands two things simultaneously: protection of peaceful dissent and protection against arbitrary governmental interference.
2. The Supreme Court's guidance: Balance, not supremacy of one right
In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court considered the competing interests of demonstrators and residents affected by protests in the Jantar Mantar area of New Delhi.
In paragraph 61, the Court stated:
“Balancing would mean curtailing one right of one class to some extent so that the right of the other class is also protected.”
This observation expresses the central principle of the present debate. Neither the rights of demonstrators nor those of the affected public should automatically extinguish the other. The law must seek a fair accommodation of both.
The Court recognised the serious discomfort and harassment caused to residents while also acknowledging the established use of Jantar Mantar for demonstrations. It further observed in paragraph 62 that inadequate regulatory measures by the authorities had contributed to the problem.
In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), popularly known as the Shaheen Bagh case, the Supreme Court stated in paragraph 16:
“Our Constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties.”
The Court further observed in paragraph 17:
“public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely.”
These observations arose from the prolonged blockage of a public road that caused grave inconvenience to commuters. They should not be misread as prohibiting peaceful demonstrations or treating every temporary interruption of traffic as unlawful.
The judgments establish a constitutional principle of enduring importance: the rights of protesters and the rights of non-participants must be balanced, not treated as mutually exclusive.
3. The United States: Protect the message, regulate reasonably
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
American constitutional law generally prevents authorities from suppressing peaceful demonstrations merely because their message is unpopular or opposed by the government. At the same time, reasonable restrictions concerning the time, place and manner of demonstrations may be permissible when they satisfy constitutional standards.
In Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972), the US Supreme Court examined the relationship between expressive freedom and the ordinary functioning of public places. The Court explained:
“The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.”
This principle is relevant to India. A public park, a busy highway, a hospital entrance and a designated demonstration ground serve different purposes. The location and manner of a protest can legitimately be relevant to its regulation.
Authorities may make reasonable arrangements for traffic diversion, regulate amplification, provide alternative routes or impose lawful safety conditions. Such measures must not become disguised means of suppressing a particular political viewpoint.
The American experience illustrates the difference between restricting a message and reasonably regulating the circumstances in which it is expressed.
4. Japan and the wider Asian experience
Article 21 of the Constitution of Japan protects freedom of assembly, association, speech and expression, and prohibits censorship.
Japan provides a useful comparative example of a constitutional system in which freedom of assembly coexists with legal requirements governing public demonstrations. The essential question, as in India, is whether regulation serves a legitimate purpose and remains consistent with constitutional freedom.
Other Asian democracies, including South Korea, have experienced major public movements that contributed to democratic development. Their experience demonstrates the political importance of peaceful mass mobilisation while highlighting the practical challenges of maintaining public order and protecting the wider community.
No foreign system should be copied mechanically. Legal traditions, constitutional guarantees and administrative arrangements differ. Nor should a restrictive system be treated as a model merely because it reduces visible disruption.
The relevant lesson is broader: a democracy must make room for dissent while maintaining the conditions necessary for ordinary civic life.
5. The forgotten rights of non-participants
The public debate about demonstrations often concentrates on the rights of those who assemble. The interests of those who do not participate can receive much less attention.
A protest takes place in a shared society. Public roads, hospitals, schools, transport systems, marketplaces and neighbourhoods are used by everyone. They do not belong exclusively to protesters, the government or any political organisation.
Consider a worker who loses a day's wages because transport is disrupted, a patient whose treatment is delayed, or a small trader whose customers cannot reach the shop. For economically vulnerable citizens, even a short disruption may cause serious hardship.
These citizens are not necessarily opponents of the cause being advanced. They may support it, oppose it or have no opinion about it at all. Their right to continue their daily lives should not depend upon their political preferences.
The argument is not that every inconvenience makes a protest unlawful. Peaceful public action will sometimes cause unavoidable disruption. The question is whether the disruption is reasonable, proportionate and consistent with the rights of others.
The non-participant is not an enemy of the protester. The non-participant is equally a citizen.
A democratic movement should recognise this reality rather than treating public inconvenience as an inevitable and irrelevant price of political expression.
6. Government regulation: Authority with restraint
The State has a legitimate duty to maintain public order, protect life and property, facilitate peaceful assemblies and preserve access to essential services. But this duty must be exercised fairly and according to law.
The government cannot prohibit demonstrations simply because their organisers oppose its policies. Rules must not be applied selectively to favour supporters of the ruling establishment while obstructing political opponents.
The Supreme Court's decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), although concerned with restrictions on communications in Jammu and Kashmir rather than street protests, provides a relevant general constitutional principle.
In paragraph 70, the Court explained that restrictions on fundamental rights must be assessed for legitimacy, necessity and the availability of less intrusive alternatives. It stated:
“only the least restrictive measure can be resorted to by the State, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances.”
Applied cautiously to protest regulation, this principle supports a practical approach. If traffic can be managed by a diversion, an outright prohibition may be unnecessary. If a demonstration can proceed at a different time or along a suitable route, those alternatives should be considered.
Where a genuine and serious risk to public safety exists, stronger restrictions may be justified, but they must remain lawful and proportionate.
Similarly, peaceful participants should not be punished indiscriminately for the unlawful conduct of others. Violence, intimidation, destruction of property and deliberate obstruction may attract legal consequences, but responsibility must be established in accordance with law.
The State must protect public order without turning public order into an excuse for political silence.
7. Youth, national interest and constitutional democracy
Youth has been a driving force of social and political change across nations and generations. Young people have challenged injustice, resisted oppression, advanced scientific and social progress, and helped build democratic institutions. Their energy, idealism and willingness to question established practices are valuable national assets.
But youthful energy must be accompanied by constitutional understanding and a sense of national responsibility. The strength of a movement should be measured not merely by the size of its gathering or the intensity of its slogans, but also by the justice of its cause, the lawfulness of its methods and its contribution to the nation's future.
India operates in a challenging geopolitical environment. National security, economic stability, social cohesion and the credibility of democratic institutions are matters of legitimate national concern. Persistent institutional instability can create vulnerabilities that external actors may seek to exploit.
This does not mean that criticism of the Central Government weakens India. In a democracy, constructive criticism can expose mistakes, improve governance and strengthen the nation. Nor should peaceful protesters be portrayed as acting against national interest merely because they oppose a government policy.
The necessary distinction is between strengthening constitutional democracy and undermining the institutions and conditions on which the nation's stability depends.
A strong Central Government is important for effective administration, national security and the implementation of public policy. But its strength should rest on constitutional legitimacy, public confidence, accountability and the rule of law—not on the absence of criticism.
Likewise, a government should not confuse its own political interests with the national interest. The government of the day is an elected constitutional authority; the nation and its Constitution are enduring institutions that transcend any particular administration.
Young people should therefore be encouraged to protest peacefully, question authority and demand accountability, while also respecting the rights of fellow citizens, protecting public property and avoiding violence. National interest should inform the exercise of democratic freedoms, not become a pretext for denying them.
8. Constitutional supremacy, judicial independence and the lessons of instability
Countries in which constitutional safeguards collapse, judicial independence is undermined, or political disputes are resolved through violence rather than lawful institutions can experience serious instability. In extreme situations, institutional breakdown may create conditions for external interference, although foreign intervention has multiple causes and cannot be attributed to domestic protests alone.
India's constitutional order must therefore be protected through respect for constitutional supremacy, an independent judiciary, the rule of law and accountable government.
The judiciary must remain capable of reviewing arbitrary governmental action. The executive must have sufficient authority to discharge its constitutional responsibilities. Citizens must retain the freedom to express dissent, organise peaceful demonstrations and seek legal remedies.
These principles are complementary, not contradictory.
A government that cannot maintain public order within the Constitution may fail in its responsibilities. Equally, a government that suppresses peaceful dissent may undermine the public confidence on which its legitimacy depends.
The objective must be to strengthen the constitutional State, not to place any institution or office-holder beyond scrutiny.
9. A practical framework for India
India needs a transparent and consistently applied system for facilitating demonstrations while protecting the general public. The following principles deserve consideration:
1.    Reasonable protest spaces: Authorities should identify accessible locations suitable for demonstrations, without rendering the right ineffective by placing every protest far from public attention.
2.    Advance coordination: Clear arrangements should be made for routes, timings, traffic management, crowd safety and emergency access.
3.    Protection of essential services: Hospitals, emergency corridors, fire services and essential transport should receive particular protection.
4.    Dialogue before coercion: Authorities should, where practicable, consult organisers and seek workable solutions before resorting to restrictive measures.
5.    Proportionate restrictions: Prohibitions and dispersal orders should have a lawful basis and respond to an identifiable risk. Less restrictive alternatives should be considered where appropriate.
6.    Equal treatment: The same legal standards should apply to ruling-party demonstrations, opposition movements, trade unions, farmers, students and civil society organisations.
7.    Accountability: Unlawful conduct should be addressed through evidence and due process, while arbitrary governmental action must remain open to judicial scrutiny.
These measures would not weaken the right to protest. Properly implemented, they would strengthen it by making peaceful demonstrations more compatible with the legitimate interests of the wider public.
Conclusion: Strengthen democracy without weakening the nation
Democracy cannot flourish without dissent. Governments make mistakes, institutions sometimes fail, and minorities may need to challenge the decisions of the majority. Peaceful protest remains one of the most powerful instruments through which citizens can demand justice and accountability.
But the existence of a just cause does not automatically justify every method used to advance it. Nor does the government's responsibility to maintain order give it an unrestricted power to silence critics.
The United States offers lessons in protecting expression while regulating the use of public spaces. Japan and other Asian democracies illustrate the continuing need to reconcile constitutional freedoms with public responsibility. India's own Constitution and Supreme Court judgments provide the legal foundation for achieving that balance.
Our youth must remain at the forefront of democratic progress, but with a clear understanding that freedom and responsibility go together. National interest should inspire constitutional patriotism, responsible dissent and respect for the rights of others.
The Central Government must be able to discharge its constitutional duties effectively, while remaining answerable to Parliament, the judiciary and the people. A strong government and a strong democracy are not competing objectives. Properly understood, they reinforce one another.
India must guard against both extremes: the suppression of peaceful dissent and the indefinite obstruction of public life. It must protect the Constitution, encourage responsible youth participation and preserve the institutions that sustain democratic government.
The ultimate test is not how many protests a government prevents, or how much disruption a society tolerates. It is whether freedom, responsibility, national interest and the rule of law can coexist.
The right to protest must not become the right to paralyse society. Equally, the power to regulate protest must never become the power to silence society.
The strength of India lies in its ability to protect both liberty and order, both democratic dissent and national stability, under the supremacy of its Constitution.and guardianship of the Supreme Court. 

   

(Tripurainfo)

more articles...