Critically analyse the evolving role of street protest as a political strategy in India's parliamentary democracy.

Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably, and street protest has long been the reserve channel of groups outside the legislature. Its recent evolution — dharnas led personally by the statutorily recognised Leader of Opposition [1] rather than by unrepresented citizens — reflects institutional decay as much as democratic vitality.

Why protest has migrated from the floor to the street

• Collapse of deliberation: in the Monsoon Session 2026 the Lok Sabha functioned for 17.5 hours, about 15% of scheduled time, with Question Hour at roughly 1% [2] — the House ceases to be a usable arena of accountability.
• Majoritarian arithmetic: the LoP commands visibility and statutory status [1] but no power to compel answers, making symbolic street action the higher-yield option.
• Jurisdictional gaps: police and public order lie outside the Delhi Assembly's competence, with Delhi Police under the Union [3] — protest substitutes for a missing local accountability forum.

Democratic value

• Enforces existing legal duties: registration of an FIR on a cognizable complaint is mandatory under Lalita Kumari (2013) [4]; public pressure sometimes secures what routine process delays.
• Voice for victims of alleged excessive force, pushing proportionality of crowd-control methods into public debate — a concern the Second ARC's report on Public Order flagged while urging police accountability and separation of investigation from law and order [5].

Limits and costs

• Courts have drawn boundaries: indefinite occupation of public ways is impermissible, protest must occupy designated spaces (Amit Sahni, 2020) [6].
• Spectacle can displace scrutiny — a party that wins the street while disrupting the House erodes committees and Question Hour further.
• Unannounced, leader-centric mobilisation weakens coalition-building and risks confrontation.

Street protest is therefore best read as a symptom: it expands precisely as parliamentary channels contract. Its legitimate role is supplementary — restoring Question Hour, empowering departmental committees, and insisting on statutory FIR and police-accountability norms would let dissent return to the institutions the Constitution designed for it, with the street as reinforcement rather than replacement.