Balancing the right to peaceful protest with maintaining public order is a test of democratic policing. Examine.

Article 19(1)(a) and (b) guarantee free speech and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Article 19(3) allows only reasonable restrictions on these rights in the interest of public order. Democratic policing is judged by whether it limits protest only as far as that test permits. The DYFI's recent allegations about the illegal detention of protesters show what is at stake [1].

Where public order can legitimately limit protest

• Rights of others: In Amit Sahni (2020), the Supreme Court held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely and that dissent should be expressed at designated places [2].
• No blanket bans: In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the Court held that a complete ban on protests at Jantar Mantar was impermissible and asked for regulatory guidelines.
• Crowd control: Detaining protesters for a short time can be lawful, but Articles 21 and 22 still apply.

Where policing fails the test

• Skipped safeguards: Protesters were allegedly taken to a site with no CCTV and assaulted. DYFI also says there was no arrest memo, no intimation to families, no production before a magistrate and no medical examination [1]. Each of these is a D.K. Basu (1997) norm that is now law under the BNSS.
• Custodial abuse: The NHRC received 148 reports of deaths in police custody in 2017–18 [3]. Non-fatal assaults are not counted at all.
• Accountability gap: India has no anti-torture law. The Law Commission's 273rd Report proposed that an injury suffered in custody be presumed to have been caused by the police [4]. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 left this out [5].
• Structural issues: Police and public order are State subjects. The Prakash Singh (2006) reforms have been implemented unevenly, which leaves room for political misuse.

Way forward

• Graded response: dialogue first, then designated protest sites, and only proportionate force.
• CCTV: extend the Paramvir Singh Saini (2020) mandate to police vehicles and temporary holding sites.
• Anti-torture law: enact one with statutory compensation, as the Law Commission recommended [4].
• Oversight: make Police Complaints Authorities functional and train police in crowd management.

Peaceful protest and public order are not opposites. Both depend on proportionality: restrict only as much as necessary, and follow procedural safeguards when doing so. Aligning practice with Articles 19 and 21, the Law Commission's recommendations and SDG 16 would let the police protect both order and dissent, which is the real test of a democracy.