How should courts balance the right to peaceful protest with public order when handling student agitations over recruitment? Discuss with recent examples.

Article 19(1)(b) guarantees citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on that right in the interest of public order [1]. Student protests over recruitment test this balance closely. The students usually have real grievances, but long sit-ins also affect other people's rights. Courts should protect dissent, steer it into lawful forms and push the State to fix the cause.

Judicial principles for the balance

• Regulation, not prohibition: In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the SC held there cannot be a complete ban on protests at sites such as Jantar Mantar. It directed the Centre to frame guidelines instead [2].
• Designated places, limited duration: In Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, 2020), the SC held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely. Protests must be held in designated places [3].
• Proportionality: Any restriction should be the least intrusive option that still protects commuters and residents.

Recent example: MPSC agitation, Pune (2026)

• Aspirants alleged paper leaks and exams not held according to procedure [4].
• The Bombay HC said the students "were not against the nation". It added that future protests need permission and a designated venue [4].
• Judicial restraint: The court did not dictate policy. It issued notice and sought an affidavit on the recruitment process and on vacancies that "ran to thousands" [4].
• It asked the State to restore the students' trust and asked the students to return to their studies. The State had already agreed to a ₹100 fee and in-person exams [4].

Addressing the cause of agitations

• Leaks are systemic: PRS notes that since 2015, Gujarat had not held a single recruitment exam without a reported leak [5].
• Statutory deterrence: The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 sets tough penalties for organised leaks. States can adopt it as a model [6].
• Fairness to aspirants: Uttarakhand bars candidates from exams once a chargesheet is filed, before any conviction. PRS flags this as a risk to the presumption of innocence [5].

Way forward for courts

• Hear recruitment disputes quickly and monitor State affidavits.
• Encourage grievance cells inside the Commission so that protest is not the only outlet.

Courts can best keep order by protecting the right to protest, regulating where and how long it happens, and holding the State to account for exam integrity. When students trust the recruitment process, they have little reason to protest on the streets. This upholds the constitutional promise of equality of opportunity in public employment and supports SDG 16 on accountable institutions.