The doctrine of proportionality has become the touchstone for judging state restrictions on protest. Examine with reference to recent restrictions on urban mobility during demonstrations.

Under the doctrine of proportionality, a restriction on a right must have a legitimate aim and be necessary. It must also be the least restrictive option and must not cost more than it protects. The Delhi Metro restrictions of 10 October 2026, during protests against the Chief Election Commissioner, show that courts now judge curbs on protest by this test [1].

Proportionality as the governing test

• Rights basis: In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the Court held that peaceful protest is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and (b). The state may regulate protest, balancing protesters against residents, but it may not ban it outright [2].
• Safeguards: Anuradha Bhasin (2020) held that indefinite shutdowns are impermissible. Restriction orders must follow procedure and be open to review [3].
• Recent use: On 9 October 2026 the Supreme Court ordered that movement restrictions be proportionate. It then used affidavits to check whether they were [1].

Applying the test to the Metro restrictions

Case for the state

• DMRC reported "zero reduction" in train trips [1].
• Entry and exit were regulated at only 45 of 303 stations; 258 (over 85%) stayed fully open [1]. On this view, the state regulated rather than prohibited.

Where it falls short

• Cost to the public: Ridership fell from about 58 lakh to 32 lakh, roughly 45%. DMRC itself admitted citizens were "compelled to forgo" daily activities [1].
• Misleading averages: "85% open" counts outer stations the same as those beside the protest site. Without a station-wise list of closures and reasons, the necessity of each closure cannot be tested [1].
• Unclear responsibility: DMRC filed the affidavits, but the policing calls behind the closures are not public. This blurs who is accountable.

Way forward

• Reasoned written orders for every station closure, published and open to review, as Anuradha Bhasin requires for shutdowns [3].
• Real-time public data for each station: closing and reopening times and the authority that asked for the closure.
• Courts should ask for station-level evidence, not network-wide figures.

Proportionality has turned the question from whether the state may control mobility to how much control it can justify. If states must give reasons, publish data and accept judicial review, public order and the Article 19 freedom to assemble can both be protected.