The Supreme Court on Monday observed that the right to peaceful and lawful protest is a constitutionally-protected right and that the mere fact that citizens are protesting cannot justify the use of lathi charge by the police.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana observed that peaceful demonstrations enjoy constitutional protection and that any allegation of excessive force by police authorities should be subjected to an independent inquiry. The existence of a protest did not automatically justify coercive police action, noted the Court, adding that discipline formed an essential component of the democratic process.
The Court made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions alleging excessive use of force by the Delhi Police and other law enforcement agencies against students who participated in protests over examination paper leaks, including the NEET-UG controversy.
Noting that the issue was not confined to Delhi alone, the Bench emphasised the need for a uniform framework for handling public demonstrations and governing police action during demonstrations across the country.
During the proceedings, the Court permitted the counsel representing the families of police personnel allegedly injured during the protests to participate in the matter.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that injuries suffered by police personnel and protesters were equally significant and suggested that the State should also explain whether adequate protective equipment, including helmets and other safety gear, had been provided to police personnel deployed for crowd management.
The Bench directed that all petitions concerning the alleged police action during the protests would be heard together on July 28.
The matter was initially mentioned on July 24 by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who sought urgent listing in view of the continuing protests and allegations of excessive police force against students. The Chief Justice had then agreed to list the petitions for hearing.
Earlier, on July 22, Advocate Narendra Mishra had mentioned a letter petition seeking action over the alleged police excesses at Jantar Mantar. The Court declined to entertain it at that stage as no properly instituted petition had been filed. The CJI later clarified that reports suggesting the Court had refused to hear the matter were incorrect, as only a representation had been submitted and not a formal petition.
One of the petitions, filed through Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi, sought comprehensive directions regulating police action during public protests. It further sought a prohibition on the deployment of plainclothes personnel for crowd-control duties, guidelines governing the exercise of powers under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and an independent investigation into the police action during the July 20 student protest in Delhi.
The petition alleged that students protesting against repeated examination paper leaks and seeking reforms in the education system were subjected to excessive police action, including baton charges, tear gas, large-scale detentions and physical assaults.
It also alleged that female protesters were subjected to gender-based misconduct and that unidentified or plainclothes personnel participated in the use of force. According to the petition, at least 60 protesters sustained injuries during the police action, necessitating an independent and impartial inquiry.
Another petition, filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi against the Union of India, the Government of NCT of Delhi, the Commissioner of Delhi Police and all States and Union Territories, sought enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
The plea stated that the immediate cause of action arose from the events of July 20, when students and other citizens marched towards Parliament demanding accountability for the alleged NEET-UG paper leak, reforms in the examination system and the resignation of the then Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. It alleged that the demonstration was met with extensive police deployment, barricading, use of tear gas, baton charges and mass detentions.
Apart from allegations of excessive force, the petition also challenged the closure of metro services and internet shutdowns imposed during the protests. It contended that these measures disrupted the daily lives of commuters, students, office-goers and patients, while adversely affecting banking services, telemedicine, remote work and access to emergency services.
The plea argued that the issues raised extended beyond a single incident and involved broader constitutional questions concerning police accountability, regulation of peaceful assemblies and the lawful exercise of coercive powers by law enforcement agencies. It cited the July 20 incident as an example of recurring concerns regarding restrictions imposed on peaceful protests.
The petition also questioned the repeated invocation of Section 163 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It contended that authorities have increasingly relied on repeated or continuous prohibitory orders, effectively converting the constitutional right to peaceful assembly into a system requiring prior police permission. According to the petitioner, such blanket or repetitive prohibitory orders, issued without an immediate threat to public order, violated constitutional guarantees.
The petitioner alleged that the deployment of plainclothes or unidentified police personnel during the July 20 protests violated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Somnath v. State of Maharashtra, which require police officers carrying out arrests or interrogations to display visible identification.
The plea also challenged the constitutional validity and application of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which criminalises acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. It contended that the provision was vague, overbroad and capable of being invoked against peaceful political dissent, academic criticism and lawful protests, thereby creating a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression.
The petition sought nationwide guidelines prohibiting police personnel from conducting crowd-control operations or effecting arrests while in plain clothes or without visible identity badges. It further sought a Standard Operating Procedure regulating the exercise of powers under Section 163 of the BNSS, restricting the issuance of blanket or recurring prohibitory orders without a recorded and proximate threat to public order.
Additionally, the petitioner sought guidelines limiting the invocation of Section 152 of the BNS so that it cannot be used against peaceful protests, political dissent or academic criticism unless there is direct and imminent incitement to armed rebellion or secessionist violence. The plea sought implementation of the police reforms directed by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), including the establishment of independent Police Complaints Authorities in all States and Union Territories.
The petition further prayed for the constitution of an independent Judicial Commission or a Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to investigate the alleged police excesses, gender-based violence and arbitrary detentions during the July 20 protests. It further sought directions for registration of an FIR against police personnel allegedly involved in assaults and sexual abuse of female protesters, along with their identification, suspension and prosecution in accordance with law.
The post Peaceful protests cannot justify police lathi charge: Supreme Court appeared first on India Legal.