"The right to protest is integral to democracy but not absolute." Discuss with reference to recent judicial approaches to protests in commercial and public spaces.

Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right "to assemble peaceably and without arms". Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on it in the interests of public order. Recent judgments treat protest as a right that the state must regulate rather than prohibit, while protecting the rights of other people.

Why protest is integral to democracy

• Voice between elections: it lets citizens hold power to account. The Supreme Court held that peaceful protest is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) [2].
• No blanket bans: in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the Court struck down a total ban at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club and ordered police guidelines for limited, regulated use [2].
• Global norm: UN General Comment No. 37 (2020) says protesters should notify the authorities, not seek their permission [4]. Vague "public order" fears cannot justify a ban [5].

Why the right is not absolute

• Textual limits: it covers only peaceful, unarmed assembly, subject to Article 19(3).
• Others' rights: Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, 2020) held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely. Dissent belongs in designated places [3].
• Livelihoods: traders' rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 also need protection.

Recent approach to commercial spaces

• In October 2026, the Delhi High Court refused to stop the Cockroach Janta Party's protest at Connaught Place. A vendor had warned that traders would be left "on the streets" if another festive-season weekend was lost. The Court instead recorded the police's assurance that they would regulate the protesters [1].
• This follows Amit Sahni: courts should not plan crowd control, and authorities must act without waiting for court orders [3].

Gaps that remain

• "All possible steps" is a vague undertaking, so it is hard to enforce [1].
• Courts weigh each protest on its own. They have no way to deal with cumulative harm from repeated weekend closures [1].

Indian courts have therefore moved towards proportionate regulation instead of prior restraint. In the way forward, police should publish clear rules on protest sites and timings, courts should write specific conditions into the undertakings they accept, and authorities should close the smallest possible area. This approach matches General Comment No. 37 [4]. It keeps the right to dissent strong without leaving livelihoods unprotected, in line with the Constitution's balance of liberty and public order.