Polity | Fundamental Rights | Topic-based article | Published: 23 October 2026
Why This Article?
Questions on the right to sit-ins, marches and demonstrations often come in the exam. In this article, on the basis of three Supreme Court rulings, it is seen how far the court has recognised this right and which limits it has placed on it.
The Constitutional Basis
In the Shaheen Bagh case (Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, 7 October 2020), the court said that the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b) together enable citizens to assemble and protest peacefully against the State's actions or inaction. According to the court, the State should respect this. At the same time these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, which include the interests of India's sovereignty and integrity and of public order, and also to regulation by the police officers concerned.
The Three Rulings
| Ruling | Main Point |
|---|---|
| Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (15 September 1972) | Rules seeking prior permission for an assembly were not declared outside the rights. But a rule giving open discretion to refuse permission without any guidance was held arbitrary and against Article 19(1)(b) (as per the headnote). |
| Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (23 July 2018) | According to the Supreme Court's DigiSCR headnote, the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and (b); it can be permitted in a safeguarded and regulated manner, and a balance with the rights of residents is essential. The headnote also mentions designating Jantar Mantar as a site and repeatedly imposing Section 144 orders. |
| Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (7 October 2020) | The Shaheen Bagh case. The court said that the right to protest exists, but public roads and spaces cannot be occupied in this way and for an indefinite period. Demonstrations expressing dissent should be held only at designated places. |
Main Points of the Amit Sahni Ruling (Full Text Read)
- Balance: according to the court, every fundamental right has to be balanced with other rights. In this case an attempt was made to balance the protesters' right with the right of those passing through the road.
- Designated places: according to the ruling, demonstrations expressing dissent should be held only at designated places. The court said that this case was not even one of protesting at an "undesignated place", but of blocking a public road, which caused serious inconvenience to those coming and going on it.
- Occupation not acceptable: the court concluded that such occupation of public roads for protest, whether at this place or anywhere else, is not acceptable, and the administration should act to remove such encroachment or obstruction.
- Quotation from Himat Lal: the ruling cites Justice Mathew's statement in the Himat Lal case that streets and public parks are primarily for other purposes, and "there is a constitutional difference between reasonable regulation and arbitrary exclusion."
Analysis
- Right and regulation together: all three rulings show that the court recognises the right to protest, but also holds its regulation valid. The test is that the regulation should be reasonable, not arbitrary.
- A check on arbitrary discretion: in Himat Lal, the rule with uncontrolled power to refuse permission was struck down. That is, the police have the power to regulate, but they cannot be given open discretion without guidance.
- The question of place: in Amit Sahni the court emphasised place and duration: an indefinite occupation of a public road is not acceptable.
- The nature of the rulings: each of these rulings came on different facts. So in the exam answer it remains proper to write the name and year of the ruling with each point.
From the Exam Point of View
Prelims: Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b); the reasonable restrictions of Articles 19(2) and 19(3); the sequence of the Himat Lal, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and Amit Sahni rulings.
Mains (GS-2 Polity, Fundamental Rights): "The right to peaceful protest is not absolute. Discuss its limits on the basis of the Supreme Court's rulings."
Answer outline: Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) in the introduction. In the main body, the three rulings, reasonable regulation versus arbitrary exclusion, designated places and the question of public roads. At the end, the need for balance.
Sources and Limitations
Sources: Supreme Court, Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (7 October 2020), full text; Supreme Court, Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (15 September 1972); Supreme Court DigiSCR: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (23 July 2018), headnote.
Limitations: the full text of Amit Sahni was read. Only the headnote and opening parts of Himat Lal were read, and the report citation was not seen. Only the headnote of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan was read, not the full ruling, so the detailed conditions of its directions are not given in this article. No recent event or news report is included in this article.
