Barricades cannot silence the voice of democracy

1. At a Glance

• What it is: An op-ed in The Hindu by M.A. Baby, General Secretary of the CPI(M). It argues that heavier barricading, mass detentions and permission rules at Jantar Mantar, Delhi's designated protest site, are shrinking the space for dissent. [1]
• Core constitutional issue: The Supreme Court has held that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right flowing from Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c). It must be balanced against public order and the rights of other citizens. [3]
• Why aspirants should care: The topic brings together several GS-II and GS-IV themes: fundamental rights against reasonable restrictions, Section 163 of the BNSS (which replaced Section 144 of the CrPC), the independence of the ECI, and police accountability. [1][2][3]
• Caveat: The article is an opinion piece from an opposition party leader. Use it as one side of the argument, not as neutral fact.

2. Why in the News

• 2 October 2026: Prohibitory orders under Section 163 were imposed across the New Delhi district ahead of a Jantar Mantar protest demanding the resignation of CEC Gyanesh Kumar. The protest followed a media investigation into the ECI. [1][7]
• 11 Metro stations were shut and security was tightened ahead of that protest. [5]
• 3 October 2026: Nearly 200 protesters, including AISA members, were detained at Jantar Mantar. Cases were registered for disobeying orders and for obstruction. [9]
• 10 October 2026: Delhi Police refused permission for another protest against the CEC. Police said organisers must give notice 10 days before a protest. [4][2]
• Context: The 20 July 2026 NEET protests at Jantar Mantar were followed by much more barricading in the area. [1][8]

3. Background & Evolution

• Constitutional basis (1950): Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Reasonable restrictions are allowed in the interest of public order. [3]
• 2017–18: Demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club were banned outright. In 2018, in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, the SC held that there can be no "absolute" ban on peaceful demonstrations there. [11][3]
• 2018, same ruling: Authorities may regulate the time, place and manner of protests to balance competing rights. [3]
• 2020, Shaheen Bagh ruling (Amit Sahni case): Public roads and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely in the name of protest. [3]
• 2023–24: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) replaced the CrPC. Section 163 BNSS took over the old Section 144 CrPC power to issue prohibitory orders. [2][3]
• July 2026: NEET protests. The SC said that "mere agitation can't justify police excess" and that the right to peaceful protest is "absolutely guaranteed." [6][3]
• August 2026: The Delhi High Court asked, "Why should city be put to ransom?" about the Jantar Mantar protests. [10]
• 3 August 2026: The SC agreed to hear a PIL questioning whether Jantar Mantar is a suitable protest venue. [3]

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Protest is a fundamental right, but not an absolute one. The courts use a time-place-manner test rather than allowing blanket bans. [3][11]
• If a district-wide Section 163 order is issued for a single protest, its proportionality can be questioned. [1][2]
• The SC's July 2026 remark that agitation does not justify police excess sets limits on how force is used. [6]

Governance / Democratic

• The author argues that requiring government permission to protest against the government reverses the relationship between citizen and state. [1]
• The author links "closing of the streets" with "manipulation of the ballot". Protests against the CEC are framed as a demand for electoral integrity. [1][7]

Administrative

• Tools in use include closing Metro stations, traffic restrictions, mass detentions and permanent barricading. [1][5][9]
• The Delhi HC's "city ransom" remark reflects the competing rights of commuters and residents. [10]

Ethical (GS-IV)

• The tension is between dissent as a democratic safety valve and the state's duty to keep order.
• Restraint, proportionality and accountability in policing are the main ethical tests. [6]

Federal / Political

• The Delhi Police is controlled by the Union, so policing of protests in the capital is politically sensitive. Each side's position on it is partisan. [1]

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 20 Jul 2026: NEET protests and a march towards Parliament. Opposition parties criticised the use of tear gas. [8]
• Jul 2026: The SC said police excess cannot be justified by agitation. [6]
• 3 Aug 2026: The SC agreed to examine the PIL on whether Jantar Mantar suits protests. [3]
• Aug 2026: The Delhi HC made its "Why should city be put to ransom?" remark. [10]
• 2 Oct 2026 (Gandhi Jayanti): Protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar. Section 163 orders were imposed across New Delhi and 11 Metro stations were closed. [1][5][7]
• 3 Oct 2026: About 200 people were detained at Jantar Mantar. [9]
• 10 Oct 2026: Permission for the protest was denied, citing the 10-day notice rule. [4][2]

7. Prelims Hooks

• Article 19(1)(b): the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. [3]
• The right to peaceful protest is read into Articles 19(1)(a), (b) and (c). It is not an explicitly listed right. [3]
• Section 163 BNSS is the successor to Section 144 CrPC. [2][3]
• Section 163 orders usually bar gatherings of five or more persons without permission. [2]
• MKSS v. Union of India (2018): the SC lifted the absolute ban on protests at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club. [11]
• MKSS also allowed regulation of the time, place and manner of protests. [3]
• Shaheen Bagh ruling (2020): public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely. [3]
• Jantar Mantar is the designated protest site in New Delhi. [1]
• Delhi Police require notice 10 days in advance for Jantar Mantar protests. [1][4]
• The CEC at the centre of the October 2026 protests is Gyanesh Kumar. [1][7]

8. Why a Whole-District Ban for One Protest Is Hard to Defend

• The Supreme Court has already set conditions for prohibitory orders
• In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020), the Court said the Section 144 power can be used only when two conditions are met. The order must state the material facts (the actual reasons) behind it, and the danger must be like an emergency [13][14].
• The Court also said that repeating Section 144 orders again and again is an abuse of power [13].

• These tests were set for Section 144 CrPC. They apply just as much to Section 163 BNSS, which simply took its place [2].

• One protest at one site, but a ban across the whole district

• On 2 October, the Section 163 order covered the entire New Delhi district. Eleven Metro stations were also shut [1][5].
• The protest was planned at a single place, Jantar Mantar [7].

• Under proportionality (the rule that a restriction must be no bigger than the danger it addresses), the state must choose the least restrictive measure (the mildest step that still works). A district-wide ban stops every gathering of five or more people, even ones that have nothing to do with the protest [2].

• Jantar Mantar's own legal history is about this exact problem

• The MKSS case (2018) began as a challenge to repeated Section 144 orders in Central Delhi [15].
• The Court's answer was to keep a limited part of Jantar Mantar open for peaceful meetings, not to allow a total ban [15][11].
• Heavy barricading after the NEET protests, district-wide orders and refusals of permission start to look like the same total ban, brought back in parts [1][4].

9. When a Notice Rule Quietly Becomes a Permission Rule

• Telling the police is not the same as asking the police
• A notification system means organisers inform the authorities so they can plan traffic and security.
• An authorisation system means the protest cannot happen unless the state says yes.
• The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 37 (2020) explains Article 21 of the ICCPR (the UN treaty on civil and political rights). It says notification is allowed but must not turn into authorisation in practice [12].

• Where a permission rule exists, permission must be given as a matter of course. It can be refused only for compelling reasons [12].

• The 10-day rule works as a filter

• On 10 October, Delhi Police refused permission for a protest because notice had not been given 10 days in advance [4][2].

• That is a refusal on procedure, not because of any stated danger. It is exactly what General Comment 37 warns against [12].

• Protests that react to the news cannot wait 10 days

• The protest against the CEC came after a media investigation into the ECI [7].
• General Comment 37 says notice must not be required for spontaneous assemblies (protests that form quickly in response to an event) when there is no time to give it [12].

• A fixed 10-day wait means a protest about this week's news can happen only after the news is old.

• The author's main point has a legal basis

• M.A. Baby argues that asking the government for permission to protest against the government turns the citizen–state relationship upside down [1].
• That is a political claim. But the notice-versus-permission difference shows it is also a real legal question, not just rhetoric [12].

10. The Strongest Case for the Police, and Where It Stops

• What the other side gets right
• Jantar Mantar is in the middle of the capital, close to Parliament. Large crowds there affect commuters, residents and security.
• The Delhi High Court asked, "Why should city be put to ransom?", which recognises that other people's rights also count [10].
• In the Shaheen Bagh ruling (2020), the SC held that public roads cannot be occupied indefinitely [3].
• The 20 July NEET march towards Parliament ended with tear gas. That shows crowds can escalate [8].

• Even General Comment 37 accepts that some advance notice helps the police make a protest go smoothly [12].

• Where the argument stops working

• Each of these points supports regulating a protest: its time, place, route and size. MKSS allows that [3].
• None of them supports closing the protest site or a district-wide ban for a protest planned at one spot. MKSS and Anuradha Bhasin rule out both [11][13].

• A risk at one event does not prove a risk at every event. Anuradha Bhasin asks for material facts about this threat, not a general fear of crowds [13].

• An honest balance for an answer

• The state can control how people protest. It should not control whether they can protest at all.
• The October measures went past that line on scale (a whole district) and on procedure (refusal because of the notice period), even if some regulation was needed.

11. Who Checks the Police When the Protest Is Against the State

• The checks come only after the harm is done
• The Delhi Police reports to the Union MHA, and these protests were aimed at a constitutional body, the ECI [1][7].
• So the authority that limits the protest is part of the same state the protesters are criticising.
• The only real check is the courts, and they act afterwards. In July the SC said agitation cannot justify police excess [6]. On 10 October it agreed to hear a contempt plea (a petition saying officials disobeyed a court order) against the authorities over the Delhi protests [16].

• By then, the protest date has passed and the 200 people detained have already been booked [9].

• Charging people for skipping a procedure

• The 3 October detainees were booked for disobeying orders and for obstruction [9].
• General Comment 37 says that failing to give notice does not make taking part in a protest unlawful. On its own, it cannot justify breaking up the protest, arrests or criminal charges [12].

• If people are charged only for breaking a prohibitory order, the paperwork rule decides who gets a criminal case.

• The orders are hard to challenge because the reasons are not visible

• In Anuradha Bhasin, the SC ordered that all Section 144 orders in J&K be published [13].
• If the reasons are not on record, a citizen cannot show that an order is disproportionate. The order can then be renewed again and again without anyone noticing.

12. What Should Change, and Who Should Change It

• Delhi Police: replace the fixed 10-day wait with real notification
• Treat a notice as approved by default unless police give written, specific reasons within a short time.
• Allow a short-notice route for spontaneous protests.

• This follows the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 37 [12].

• District magistrates and police: publish every Section 163 order with its reasons

• State the material facts, and limit the area to what the threat actually needs.
• Set a clear end date and avoid back-to-back renewals.

• These are the conditions the SC laid down in Anuradha Bhasin [13][14].

• Supreme Court: use the pending Jantar Mantar PIL to set clear rules

• The SC agreed on 3 August to hear whether Jantar Mantar is a suitable protest venue [3].

• The case is a chance to set written, time-place-manner standards: capacity, hours, notice period and a ban on district-wide orders for single-site protests. MKSS (2018) left these largely to the police [15].

• Prosecutors: do not file criminal cases only for not giving notice

• Keep criminal charges for violence or real obstruction, not for a missing permission letter [12].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: About 200 protesters detained at Jantar Mantar on 3 October 2026; 11 Metro stations shut for a single protest [9][5]
• Law/Case: Anuradha Bhasin v. UoI (2020): Section 144 orders need material facts and an emergency-like danger; repeated orders are an abuse of power [13][14]
• Law/Case: MKSS v. UoI (2018): arose from repeated Section 144 orders in Central Delhi; regulation allowed, absolute ban not allowed [15]
• Law/Case: Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012): peaceful assembly treated as a basic feature of democracy [3]
• Comparison: UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 37 (2020) on ICCPR Art. 21: notice is allowed, permission is not; no notice needed for spontaneous protests; not giving notice alone cannot justify arrest [12]

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Fundamental rights; functioning of the Judiciary; constitutional bodies (ECI); the Union Territory of Delhi and policing.
• GS-IV: Ethics in public administration; tension between order and liberty; proportionality.
• Essay: Dissent and democracy.
• Possible question stems: 1. "The right to protest is integral to democracy, yet not absolute." Examine this in light of the Supreme Court's rulings on Jantar Mantar and Shaheen Bagh. 2. Critically evaluate how Section 163 of the BNSS is used to regulate public assemblies. Are blanket prohibitory orders consistent with the test of proportionality? 3. Electoral integrity depends as much on public trust as on procedure. Discuss this in the context of recent demands for accountability from the Election Commission of India.

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Article 19(2)–(6) reasonable restrictions: the legal limits on every freedom, including protest.
• BNSS 2023 vs CrPC 1973: a mapping of the new criminal law provisions (e.g., 144 → 163).
• Anuradha Bhasin v. UoI (2020): proportionality applied to Section 144 orders and internet shutdowns.
• Appointment of the CEC and ECs: relevant to the ECI-independence debate behind the protests.
• Police reforms (Prakash Singh, 2006): accountability in crowd control.
• Article 239AA and the Delhi governance structure: explains why the Delhi Police reports to the Union.
• Ramlila Maidan incident case (2012): an earlier SC ruling on police action against a peaceful assembly.

16. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Right to protest (Polity): The article's central issue: protest as a fundamental right derived from Articles 19(1)(a), (b) and (c).
• Prohibitory order (Polity): Explains Section 163 BNSS (earlier Section 144) orders used to bar gatherings, and the proportionality test.
• Reasonable restrictions (Polity): Protest is not absolute; public-order limits and the time-place-manner test are what courts apply.
• Freedom of assembly (Polity): Article 19(1)(b) gives the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, the base of the Jantar Mantar rulings.
• Election Commission of India (Polity): The protests demand accountability from the ECI and its CEC, so its role and independence matter.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (Polity): This law replaced the CrPC and moved the prohibitory-order power from Section 144 to Section 163.

17. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Saying "Section 144" for post-2024 orders. Under the BNSS the provision is Section 163. [2]
• Treating the right to protest as explicitly listed in Article 19. It is derived from 19(1)(a), (b) and (c). [3]
• Confusing MKSS (2018), which bars an absolute ban and allows regulation, with Shaheen Bagh (2020), which bars indefinite occupation. [3][11]
• Assuming the Delhi Police reports to the Delhi Government. It reports to the Union MHA.
• Treating the op-ed's claims (e.g., "manipulation of the ballot") as established fact. They are the author's partisan argument. [1]