Discuss whether blanket prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS meet the proportionality test the Supreme Court laid down for restricting the right to peaceful assembly.

Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaced Section 144 CrPC. It lets an executive magistrate stop assemblies in urgent cases of apprehended danger [2]. A Supreme Court petition now challenges such orders, which covered almost all of New and Central Delhi [1]. Blanket orders of this kind may serve a legitimate aim, but they usually fail the proportionality standard set in Anuradha Bhasin (2020) [3].

The proportionality test

• Legitimate aim: the restriction must serve an Article 19(3) ground such as public order.
• Rational nexus: the measure must be logically linked to that aim.
• Least restrictive means: no milder option should be available.
• Reasoned order: it must state the material facts and be open to judicial review. It cannot suppress legitimate expression, and repeated orders amount to abuse [3].

Case for blanket orders

• High-security zone: central Delhi houses Parliament, ministries, embassies and bodies like the ECI.
• Built-in limits: Article 19(1)(b) protects only assembly "peaceably and without arms". Amit Sahni (2020) held that public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely.
• Preventive character: Bhasin accepts that the power can act on an apprehension of danger, not only on present danger [3].

Why they usually fail the test

• No imminence: Madhu Limaye (1970) and Ramlila Maidan (2012) require a real, imminent danger. The petition argues that a call to protest is not a "breach of peace" [1].
• Not least restrictive: covering a whole city zone ignores options such as time, place and manner rules and the regulated protest sites endorsed in MKSS (2018).
• Public order ≠ law and order: under Ram Manohar Lohia (1966), a small gathering without permission does not disturb the life of the whole community.
• Self-created illegality: permission is refused, an order follows, and those who still turn up are detained. This turns a right into a privilege [1].
• Global benchmark: UN General Comment 37 presumes that assemblies are peaceful and bars prohibition without compelling justification [4].

Blanket Section 163 orders meet the legitimate-aim test but generally fail the tests of necessity and least restrictive means. The way forward lies in narrow, time-bound and published orders, a notice-based protest system and working protest sites. This balance would respect Bhasin's mandate and keep dissent, the safety valve of democracy, within the promise of Article 19.