The right to protest is a fundamental right, but not an absolute one. Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court judgments on public assemblies.

The Constitution does not name a "right to protest". The right comes from Article 19(1)(a) (speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (assembling peaceably and without arms) [1]. The same Article allows reasonable restrictions, and the Supreme Court has kept trying to balance dissent against public order.

Protest as a fundamental right

• Constitutional basis: Peaceful assembly is a guaranteed freedom. It lets citizens hold governments to account between elections [1].
• Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012): The Court held that the midnight police crackdown on sleeping protesters was arbitrary. It violated Articles 19 and 21. The State may limit assembly only when there is a real threat to public order, never as a matter of convenience [3].
• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. UoI (2018): The Court set aside the blanket ban on protests at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club. It called peaceful protest a fundamental right and said a total prohibition is disproportionate [2].

Why the right is not absolute

• Textual limits: Article 19(3) allows restrictions on assembly in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India and public order [1].
• Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020, Shaheen Bagh): The Court held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely. Protests must be held in designated areas [3].
• Competing rights: In MKSS, the Court also recognised the right of residents to live peacefully. It said authorities may require prior permission and set conditions on protests [2].
• Regulatory tools: Prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS (formerly Section 144 CrPC) are valid only when they are proportionate and based on reasons [2].

The judicial balancing test

Protest right ──► Is the restriction lawful? ──► Is it in the interest of public order?
                         └──► Is it proportionate? (regulate, not ban)

Courts weigh dissent against public order

Concerns

• Vague use of "public order", pre-emptive bans and heavy-handed policing can chill dissent. The Prakash Singh (2006) police reforms remain largely unimplemented.

The Court's judgments show a consistent line: regulate protest, do not prohibit it. The State should frame clear guidelines on protest sites and police with restraint. Protesters, in turn, should stay non-violent and avoid blocking public spaces. Protecting peaceful dissent within reasonable limits upholds the Preamble's promise of liberty of thought and expression.