The right balance

The right balance

Introduction

Following the Shaheen Bagh protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, the Supreme Court has ventured to hold that any such indefinite blockade of a public pathway is unacceptable.
The Court’s view arises from a straightforward balancing of two contrasting rights — the right to protest and the right to free movement.
It has ruled that the administration must take action to remove encroachments and obstructions placed during such protests.
The Court’s assertion was made even while appreciating the existence of the right to peaceful protest against a legislation.

Issue:

The question raised here is whether the manner and content of a protest should always conform to forms deemed acceptable by the law.
Protests, by their very nature, are not always rooted in legality.
They derive legitimacy from the rightness of the underlying cause and the extent of public support.
In many cases, they are against laws and regulations perceived as unjust.
A flash strike, a spontaneous roadblock, a call for a complete shutdown, or a campaign to fill up jails by defying prohibitory orders — are not, in a strict sense, legal; but, are a part of the culture of protest in a democracy.
Another aspect of the present ruling is the assertion that protests should be confined to designated places.
Such judicial certitude may lessen the effectiveness of the larger democratic need for public expression of dissent in a manner and place that would be most effective.

Way forward:

While notified demonstrations are subject to regulations regarding time and space, it may not be possible to extend the same to spontaneous, organic and leaderless protests driven by a cause.
The ruling should not become the basis for suppression of protests by the force of the state.
While the need for balance between the right to protest and the right to free movement, and the rule that protests should take place at designated spots are beneficial from an administrative point of view, they must not become unquestionable principles to the point that render all protests that cause inconvenience to others, the target of the strong arm of the state.

Source: THE HINDU