Supreme Court’s Protest Order Is No Blanket Licence

The Supreme Court, in a special sitting today, directed the police to permit peaceful protests where Section 163 was not in force, follow the procedure prescribed by law while detaining protesters, and remove barricades unless they were “absolutely warranted.”

“We have been informed that a notice under Section 163 has been imposed in and around the Supreme Court. We direct the authorities to take down the restriction so that there is no apprehension of access to justice with regard to ingress and egress to the Supreme Court or any other court,” a bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said.

The bench said the free movement of people should be normalised, subject to necessary regulation in a public order situation, amid the protest call by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).

It also directed the Centre to ensure that there was no “complete prohibition” on the movement of metro trains and trains coming to Delhi. However, it clarified that the police could take necessary decisions to maintain law and order, depending on the ground situation from time to time.

Whatever the directions of the apex court, the ground reality is that political parties are gearing up for more street protests in the days to come. They are likely to accuse the authorities of contempt of court whenever restrictions are imposed. What they may conveniently overlook, however, is that the Supreme Court has not granted blanket permission to stage protests whenever and wherever one chooses. There are procedures to be followed by both protesters and law enforcement agencies. Where required, permission must be obtained in accordance with the rules.

Yet, opposition leaders, including MPs, repeatedly argue that protesting is their democratic and Constitutional right and that they do not need permission. This questionable reasoning can lead to confrontation between protesters and the authorities.

Some newly emerged protest groups, such as the CJP, as well as MPs and Congress chief ministers, have described the present situation as an undeclared Emergency, or even something worse. Most of them were not even born when the Emergency was imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. BJP leaders argue that they should first understand what that period meant, when people were allegedly picked up and imprisoned without proper notice, and even their families were not informed about the jails in which they were held.

Now only preventive detentions are taking place, and cases are filed if policemen on duty are attacked or if someone indulges in violence like stone pelting.

Although the police detained thousands of protesters on Saturday, most were released by the evening, barring the three CJP leaders. In the case of the CJP leaders, the action was described as preventive arrest rather than detention, necessitating their production before a magistrate.

The BJP argues that the courts should also lay down guidelines on incidents such as Rahul Gandhi’s alleged entry into Akashvani Bhavan, where he reportedly staged a sit-in for eight hours. Can such protests be permitted inside sensitive government premises? What if anti-social elements resort to similar actions, creating a law-and-order problem and threatening the security of such establishments?

Another question concerns the language used against constitutional authorities. Political leaders and protesters have used terms such as “coward”, “bully” and “traitor” against the Prime Minister and constitutional functionaries, including the Chief Election Commissioner. While criticism of public officials is an essential part of democracy, where should the line be drawn between legitimate political dissent and language that undermines public discourse?

The right to protest is fundamental to a democracy, but it does not place anyone above the law. Equally, the authorities cannot use law-and-order concerns as an excuse to suppress peaceful dissent. The challenge is to ensure that both protesters and the police respect the law, constitutional freedoms and the rights of others. The Supreme Court’s directions should be understood in that spirit—not as a licence for unrestricted protests, but as a reminder that democratic rights and public order must coexist.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gowri V

[email protected]

A Journey of Three Decades Time passes faster than we realise. What feels like a journey that began only yesterday has today grown into more than three decades of a meaningful and fulfilling life devoted to education, journalism, and the empowerment of young minds. My professional journey began with journalism training in New Delhi in 1979. I went on to work as an independent journalist, drawing on my fluency in both English and Telugu. Over the years, I have edited and worked on Telugu articles in both languages, an experience that strengthened my command of language and sharpened my understanding of society, people, and contemporary issues. Yet, my principal profession and enduring passion have always been teaching. My decision to become a teacher was not merely a career choice—it was a calling. Teaching offered me the rare privilege of inspiring young minds, guiding them through their formative years, and making a lasting difference in their lives. I found immense satisfaction in simplifying complex concepts, nurturing curiosity, encouraging independent thought, and building confidence among students. Every moment in the classroom—every question, every moment of discovery, and every spark of understanding—reminded me why I had chosen this path: to empower young people through knowledge, values, and essential life skills. My teaching career began at the grassroots level as a Montessori teacher and gradually progressed to the position of Vice Principal. I had the opportunity to work in reputed educational institutions, including Dilsukhnagar Public School in Hyderabad, where I shouldered both teaching and administrative responsibilities. Although I have always considered myself, at heart, a teacher, my administrative experience enabled me to understand and contribute to the education system from a much broader perspective. For my students, I have always tried to be an approachable and dependable presence—someone they could turn to not only for academic support, but also for guidance and emotional encouragement. At the same time, I developed a reputation as a firm disciplinarian who believed that integrity, fairness, responsibility, and discipline were fundamental to education. I was also consistently appreciated for maintaining clear communication with parents and staff and for ensuring that examinations and other academic processes were conducted with transparency, fairness, and efficiency. As my career progressed, however, I began to feel that academic education alone was not enough. This realization led me to work more closely with students following the SSC and CBSE curricula, while consciously bringing life-skills education into my teaching. I came to understand that education becomes truly meaningful when it prepares children not merely to pass examinations, but to face life. Teaching emotional resilience, self-reliance, social awareness, communication, decision-making, and other practical life skills often had a deeper and more lasting impact than academic achievement alone. I saw how these skills could help students navigate challenges with greater confidence, maturity, and responsibility. My academic background provided a strong foundation for this approach. My degree in Psychology from the University of Madras helped me develop a deeper understanding of young people's minds, their emotional needs, and the influence of their family and social environments. My M.A. in Telugu with First Class from Osmania University.

Read More