"The right to protest is a fundamental right, but not an absolute one." Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court pronouncements on the use of public spaces.

The Constitution does not name a "right to protest". The Supreme Court derives it from Article 19(1)(a), which protects speech, and Article 19(1)(b), which protects assembling "peaceably and without arms". Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on assembly in the interest of public order. The Court's rulings on public spaces follow one settled position: protest may be regulated, but never extinguished.

Protest as a fundamental right

• MKSS v. Union of India (2018): held that peaceful protest is protected under Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), and rejected a complete ban on protests at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club [1].
• Ramlila Maidan (2012): held the midnight eviction of sleeping protesters disproportionate, because State force must be proportionate.
• Democratic value: dissent works as a safety valve, and central, visible spaces are what make it heard.

Why it is not absolute

• Textual limits: only peaceful, unarmed assembly is protected. Restrictions are allowed for public order and for the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, 2020): public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely, and dissent must be expressed at designated places [2].
• Rights of others: MKSS directed the police to frame guidelines balancing protesters' rights with residents' interests [1].
• Livelihood and order: in October 2026, the SC declined an urgent hearing against NDMC's closure of Central Park, Connaught Place, before a Cockroach Janta Party protest. Justice Bagchi said, "Someone wants to protest, someone wants to sell 'mungfali', someone wants law and order. All these are related" [3].

Concerns in recent practice

• Ban vs. regulation: shutting an entire park because of one apprehended protest brings back the blanket approach that MKSS moved away from [1][3].
• Timing: refusing urgency for a dated protest can make the plea moot. The Bench offered later relief for loss of business, but nothing for the lost protest [3].
• Global benchmark: the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 37 says restrictions "must be narrowly drawn" and that States must facilitate peaceful assemblies [4].

The Court thus treats protest as a protected but regulated freedom. The way forward is to apply the proportionality test: time, place and manner rules instead of blanket closures, closure orders that give reasons and are time-bound, and priority listing for pleas tied to a protest date. Calibrated regulation of this kind would honour the Preamble's promise of liberty of expression while preserving public order, so that dissent and governance can coexist.