Discuss the constitutional basis of the right to peaceful protest in India and the limits the state can impose in the interest of public order, with reference to recent student agitations.

Q. Discuss the constitutional basis of the right to peaceful protest in India and the limits the state can impose in the interest of public order, with reference to recent student agitations. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The right to protest is not a stand-alone fundamental right but a composite of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), read with Article 21 [1]. The 2026 NEET-UG paper-leak agitation at Jantar Mantar shows both its democratic value and the friction it generates with public order.

Constitutional basis - Article 19(1)(a) — freedom of speech and expression covers dissent voiced through placards, slogans and marches [1]. - Article 19(1)(b) — right to assemble peaceably and without arms; the protest loses protection once it turns violent or armed [1]. - Article 19(1)(c) and Article 21 — freedom of association and a dignified life sustain sustained, organised agitation. - Judicially affirmed in Anita Thakur v. Govt. of J&K (2016), where the Supreme Court held peaceful protest a fundamental right and awarded compensation for excessive police force [2].

Permissible limits in the interest of public order - Articles 19(2) and 19(3) permit reasonable restrictions on grounds including public order and sovereignty — restrictions must be reasonable, not prohibitory. - Prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS (earlier Section 144, CrPC) and police licensing of routes regulate time, place and manner. - In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court held that public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely, and directed regulated use of Jantar Mantar [3].

Recent student agitations: the balance in practice - The 2026 NEET-UG leak, probed by the CBI with multiple arrests, produced a month-long sit-in demanding ministerial accountability [4][5]. - The "Chalo Sansad" march (July 2026) met lathis, tear gas and pellet guns — raising proportionality questions, since force must be graded and minimal [5]. - Grievance-redressal reform matters equally: the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 must be enforced credibly so protest is not the only remedy [6].

Protest and public order are complementary, not competing, goods. The state should institutionalise designated protest zones, body-camera-recorded crowd control and time-bound examination-integrity audits. Such calibration honours both Article 19's promise and the constitutional value of fraternity.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(c), 19(2), 19(3), 21 2. Anita Thakur & Ors. v. Govt. of J&K & Ors. (2016), Supreme Court of India — peaceful protest as a fundamental right; compensation for excessive police force 3. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), Supreme Court of India — no indefinite occupation of public spaces; regulated protest at Jantar Mantar 4. CBI press releases on the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak case, PIB — CBI investigation and arrests in the 2026 leak 5. “The ‘cockroaches’ who refuse to crawl away”, The Hindu — Jantar Mantar sit-in, “Chalo Sansad” march, use of lathis, tear gas and pellet guns 6. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Bill/Act, 2024, PRS Legislative Research — statutory framework against paper leaks in NTA-conducted examinations