‘Peaceful Protest Is A Constitutional Right, Lathi Charge Can't Be The Answer': CJI Surya Kant's Strong Message On Jantar Mantar Police Action

The Supreme Court on Monday underscored the constitutional protection available to peaceful protests, with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observing that "mere agitation cannot justify a lathi-charge" while hearing a batch of petitions alleging excessive police force during the July 20 student protest at Delhi's Jantar Mantar.

A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan made the oral observations after petitions concerning the alleged police crackdown on students protesting over examination paper leaks were mentioned before the court.

'Peaceful, Lawful Protest Is Constitutionally Guaranteed'

Making significant observations on the right to protest, CJI Surya Kant said peaceful and lawful demonstrations enjoy constitutional protection and that allegations of police excess must be independently examined.

"The right to peaceful, lawful protest is absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution. So long as it is peaceful agitation, merely because there is agitation, there can't be a lathi-charge. If there is excess committed, it should be independently examined. It's not only a case of Delhi. Uniformity in protocol is required. Merely because there is agitation doesn't mean lathi-charge. Discipline is integral to the democratic process," the CJI said.

The Bench also highlighted the need for uniform nationwide protocols governing police handling of demonstrations, indicating that the issues raised extend beyond the national capital.

Court To Hear All Petitions Together

The Supreme Court agreed to hear all petitions together on Tuesday.

The Bench also permitted counsel representing families of police personnel injured during the protest to participate in the proceedings.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that injuries sustained by both protesters and police personnel deserved equal attention.

“Injury to an individual, be it a policeman or a student, is of equal concern. We may also ask the State why adequate protective equipment was not provided to police personnel. They should have helmets,” Justice Bagchi remarked.

What The Petitions Allege

One of the petitions seeks an independent investigation into the alleged police action during the July 20 protest, when students and citizens marched towards Parliament demanding reforms in the education system and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over examination paper leaks.

The petition alleges that the demonstration was met with heavy police deployment, barricading, tear gas, lathi charge and mass detentions. It claims that at least 60 protesters were injured and also alleges physical assaults, arbitrary detentions and gender-based misconduct against women protesters, including the involvement of unidentified or plainclothes personnel.

Seeking broader institutional reforms, the plea has asked the Supreme Court to frame national guidelines regulating police action during public demonstrations. Among its key demands are:

• A ban on deploying plainclothes personnel for crowd-control operations or arrests.
• Standard operating procedures for invoking Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced Section 144 of the CrPC.
• Safeguards against the misuse of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) dealing with offences affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• Implementation of the police reforms directed by the Supreme Court in the landmark Prakash Singh judgment.
• Constitution of an independent Judicial Commission or Special Investigation Team headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to probe the alleged police excesses.
• Registration of FIRs, suspension and prosecution of police personnel allegedly involved in assaults and sexual misconduct against female protesters, if the allegations are substantiated.

Challenge To Repeated Prohibitory Orders

The petition also questions the repeated use of Section 163 BNSS, arguing that frequent prohibitory orders have effectively converted the constitutional right to peaceful assembly into a system dependent on prior police permission. It contends that blanket or prolonged restrictions imposed without an immediate threat to public order are unconstitutional.

The plea further argues that the broad wording of Section 152 BNS could have a chilling effect on free speech and peaceful political dissent if invoked indiscriminately.

The matter was first mentioned before the CJI last week by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who sought an urgent hearing in light of reports alleging excessive police force during the July 20 protests. The Chief Justice had earlier refused to entertain a letter petition on the issue, clarifying that no formally instituted petition was then before the court.

With multiple petitions now on record, the Supreme Court is set to examine not only the allegations surrounding the July 20 Jantar Mantar protest but also the broader constitutional questions relating to police accountability, regulation of peaceful assemblies and the limits of coercive police powers across the country.

ALSO READ: Nepal's India-Bordering Sunsari On Edge After Communal Violence; 1 Dead, 22 Injured, Indefinite Curbs Imposed