Right to peaceful protest quashed: police excesses can’t be termed ‘PG’
A court ruling held that police excesses during protests cannot be excused by describing policing as required for “public order.”
- Indian citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and express views; the state can restrict it only under specific constitutional limits and for defined purposes like maintaining public order.
- Public order means preventing disruption of public peace; “public order” cannot become a blanket excuse for any police action during protests.
- Proportionality means police action should be suitable and necessary to achieve a lawful aim, using the minimum force needed, and balancing police goals against harm to protesters and bystanders.
- Courts can treat protest-related injuries as a trigger for checking whether police force stayed within constitutional limits, rather than treating injuries as proof of justification.
What happened
A court examined police action during a protest and the legal claim that police action could be justified as necessary to maintain public order. The court’s key positions were that injuries to individuals during protests cannot be automatically treated as proof that police action was justified, and that unlawful or excessive force during protests should not be condoned simply because the incident occurred in a protest situation.
Background and earlier position
UPSC can frame this as a test of how courts evaluate police claims of necessity during protest policing. The focus is whether courts accept “public order” as a label or require scrutiny of legality and proportionality when protest-related injuries are alleged.
Related dispatches
