Examine the use of prohibitory orders, mass detentions and internet and transit shutdowns to manage protests in light of the test of proportionality.

The right to protest peacefully comes from Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), subject to "reasonable restrictions" such as public order [1]. The proportionality test asks four things: is the aim legitimate, does the measure serve it, is it the least restrictive option, and does it fairly balance the rights affected? The Supreme Court applied this test in Anuradha Bhasin (2020) [2]. It decides whether the State is managing dissent or suppressing it.

Legitimate aim → Rational nexus → Least restrictive means → Balancing + procedural safeguards

Fig.: Proportionality test as applied to protest curbs

Prohibitory orders (S.163 BNSS, ex-S.144 CrPC)

• Legitimate use: a Magistrate can act quickly against apprehended danger, and an order lasts at most two months [3].
• Concern: police repeatedly issued blanket orders over Central Delhi. In MKSS (2018), the Supreme Court rejected a total ban and held that competing rights must be balanced, not extinguished [1].
• Bhasin: these powers cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression, and orders must state their reasons so courts can review them [2].

Mass detentions

• Preventive detention may stop violence. Rounding up unarmed protesters in bulk, however, fails the necessity test.
• Ramlila Maidan (2012): the midnight eviction of a sleeping, peaceful crowd violated Articles 19 and 21 [4].
• Every detainee keeps the Article 22 safeguards: being told the grounds, access to a lawyer, and production before a magistrate within 24 hours.

Internet and transit shutdowns

• Bhasin: an indefinite internet suspension is not allowed. Orders must be published, temporary and reviewed periodically [2].
• The Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 require reasoned orders. An order issued by a lower officer lapses unless the competent authority confirms it within 24 hours [5].
• Closing Metro stations or cutting the internet hurts commuters, students, gig workers and journalists. This collective cost fails the balancing test.
• Recent curbs of this kind in Delhi drew Supreme Court scrutiny, which shows that courts will test such measures.

Way forward

• Keep designated, accessible protest sites with time, place and manner rules, as MKSS envisaged [1].
• Make orders targeted and time-bound, publish shutdown orders, ensure independent review, and train police to facilitate crowds rather than disperse them.

Prohibitory orders, detentions and shutdowns are legitimate only as narrowly tailored, last-resort tools backed by reasons and review. Following MKSS and Bhasin, the State should make room for dissent rather than fear it. Public order should protect the Article 19 freedoms that keep a democracy accountable, not replace them.