Protests demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner have escalated across the country, especially in cities like Mumbai and Delhi, following a nationwide call by the Cockroach Janata Party, Opposition political parties, student unions and civil society groups. Across successive days, both Delhi and Mumbai have witnessed large-scale protests, and while the Mumbai protests passed off peacefully, those in Delhi have been met with violent repression from the State. Policemen clashed with protesters and cracked down using detentions, arrests and riot control measures.
That's not all. The Delhi administration has been especially coercive, shutting down metro stations, barricading streets and imposing prohibitory orders as the government seeks to keep a lid on protests that threaten to escalate until the demands of an electorate disenfranchised by the recent SIR exercise are met. Also, the Indian Government has ordered tech companies to disable certain messaging apps that allowed protesters to communicate with each other, despite an Internet shutdown ordered by the administration in response to the protests.
None of this appears to be necessary or even legal. While there’s no doubt that governments have the power to impose prohibitory orders, several court judgements have not only upheld the democratic right to protest but have also come down hard on governments using overly repressive tactics to quell peaceful protests. Several Supreme Court judgements have stated and later reiterated that the State has the power to regulate protests but has no power to outright prohibit them, and that police excesses against peaceful protesters are completely unjustified, would result in those acting on behalf of the State being denied immunity, and that the government would be liable to pay compensation to victims.
Clearly, the government of today has no interest in upholding people’s constitutionally guaranteed rights, and certain orders issued are directly in violation of every guarantee given to us by the Constitution. What’s happening today is only the culmination of years of efforts that the government has made towards stifling expression of dissent. These have ranged from buying out the media, coercing media house owners to act against their own writers, cartoonists and editors who refused to toe the party line, either by threatening to cut government funding or via other less subtle threats that their business interests would be interfered with. Comedians have been arrested, social media companies have been browbeaten into taking down content in which the government has given itself powers to be the sole arbiter of what’s in the interest of ‘national security’. Courts too have failed to adequately stand up for Constitutional freedoms as the government has gradually inched towards near autocracy, chipping away at civic freedoms one order at a time.
A democratically elected government accountable to the people has no business trying to crack down on protests and freedom of expression in general, especially those which seek to express dissent. Which, as several courts have ruled, is the ‘safety valve’ of a healthy democracy. The protests have been mild so far, especially given the scale of manipulation of voter rolls and of elections themselves that are alleged to have taken place. At the least, the government can do is give in to the demands of the protesters, relocate those responsible for the fiasco thus far, at least until a probe into what they’ve overseen is completed, and punish those found guilty.
