What happened: A bench of Chief Justice Suryakant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a group of petitions linked to the recent Delhi protests against the Chief Election Commissioner - these included traders' petitions of business loss and petitions against police action, detentions and prohibitions. CJI Suryakant said: "You cannot occupy a place forever. Where will farmers, journalists and others go? Everyone has the right to protest. A designated place should be given for a designated period."
The Layers of the Case
- The clash of rights: Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) (expression and peaceful assembly) versus fellow citizens' right to protest, the right to trade and livelihood (the Court specifically referred to daily-wage workers) and public order.
- The High Court on dharna-fasts: In the same sequence, the Kerala High Court raised questions on protests linked to dharna-satyagraha in educational institutions - the dharna and the hunger strike remain a subject of the permissible limits of modes of dissent.
- Other issues: the Court issued notice on the legal arrangement of facial-recognition surveillance and data protection; petitions alleging mistreatment of journalists and women journalists were admitted for separate hearing; the petitions were divided into 9 categories.
Background: Fasting and the Law
In India, a hunger strike is not by itself unlawful; it stands at the confluence of the right to protest under Articles 19(1)(a)-(b) and the right to life under Article 21. The Supreme Court's earlier decisions place on the State the duty to protect the life of a person sitting on an indefinite fast - without impeding the right to dissent.
Importance from the Exam Perspective
- Mains (GS-2): the mutual limits of fundamental rights, 'reasonable restrictions' (19(2)/19(3)), regulation of protests in public places, the principle of designated place/duration in the Shaheen Bagh (2020) tradition.
- Prelims: the interrelation of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(g) and 21; Section 163 of the BNSS (the former CrPC 144) used in protest prohibitions.
Mains Practice Question
"The right to protest is the soul of democracy, but indefinite occupation snatches that very right from others." Analyse in the light of the Supreme Court's recent observations. (250 words)
Answer Outline
Introduction: state the importance of peaceful protest and democratic dissent in the context of Article 19.
Main Body: present the Court's reasoning on designated place and duration, equal public access and the livelihood of daily-wage workers. On the other side, present the concerns that a shortage of protest sites shrinks effective dissent, and the possible misuse of surveillance and Section 163. Suggest a path of balance through a clear SOP, time limits, prior notice and judicial review.
Conclusion: support a proportionate arrangement without making the protection of others' rights the basis for ending the effective space of peaceful dissent.
Prelims Practice Questions
Question 1. The right to assemble peacefully and without arms is in which Article?
(a) 19(1)(a)
(b) 19(1)(b)
(c) 19(1)(c)
(d) 21
Answer and explanation
Answer: (b) - Article 19(1)(b). The freedom of expression is in 19(1)(a); both are sources of the right to protest, but assembly comes specifically from 19(1)(b).
Question 2. The prohibitory orders imposed during the Delhi protests were linked to which provision?
(a) CrPC Section 144
(b) BNSS Section 163
(c) IPC Section 124A
(d) UAPA Section 15
Answer and explanation
Answer: (b) - BNSS Section 163 - the provision of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita that stands in place of the former CrPC 144. The Court had asked the Centre to produce these very orders.
Question 3. Which is the most accurate description of the legal position on hunger strikes in India?
(a) Wholly unlawful
(b) A crime
(c) Not unlawful; at the confluence of the right under 19(1)(a)-(b) and the right to life under 21
(d) Permitted only in jail
Answer and explanation
Answer: (c) - A hunger strike is not by itself unlawful; the Supreme Court's decisions place on the State the duty to protect the life of the fasting person, without impeding the right to dissent.
Sources
- LiveLaw, 3 November 2026
- The Wire, 4 November 2026
- Earlier decisions of the Supreme Court (the State's duty regarding indefinite fasts).
Download This Article: PDF
PCSMANTRA Editorial Team
Research and Editing
We prepare current affairs analysis, exam updates and study material in Hindi and English for UPSC, State PCS, PCS-J and other competitive examinations. Every article is verified against official sources before publication; sources are listed at the end of each article.
Read our editorial policy