The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that a high-powered probe could be considered to conduct a “thorough, fair and independent” inquiry into allegations of police excesses during the recent student protests in Delhi and several other States. The top court ordered the immediate release of all minors arrested in connection with the demonstrations and restrained the police from taking coercive action against protesting students unless they had criminal antecedents.
When the system does not respond or remains insensitive to critical issues facing society, people pour onto the streets, with a single-minded purpose to express themselves and be heard. When the student community from across the nation gathered at Jantar Mantar, they were voicing the frustration over being repeatedly let down by institutions meant to protect their future. However, what was evident was an increasing tendency of the State machinery to respond to legitimate public outrage with force and brutality.
Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court's observations come as a timely reminder that such action cannot be allowed in a democracy. A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant firmly reiterated that the right to peaceful protest is a constitutional guarantee under Article 19(1)(b). The Court made it clear that public demonstrations, by themselves, can never justify indiscriminate lathi charges or excessive police action. Its decision to consider uniform, nationwide guidelines governing police conduct during protests is both timely and necessary, especially when law enforcement agencies appear to be acting with little fear of accountability.
The scenes witnessed over the past few weeks point to a deeply disturbing misuse of power. During the July 20 Parliament march, peaceful student demonstrators were met with an aggressive police response. Even more alarming were reports from Bihar's Siwan district during the July 25 bandh called by the All India Students' Association (AISA), where police allegedly opened aerial fire and deployed high-calibre weapons against protesters. Pellet guns were reported to be used by central forces against students in Delhi, reflecting a militarised approach to what was essentially a democratic exercise. Using weapons that could cause permanent disability or grievous injuries to youth demanding fair examinations violates every principle of necessity, proportionality and human dignity.
Criticism, right of expression and dissent are part and parcel of a healthy democracy, and the people of this country have a right to question those in power. When governments respond to peaceful gatherings with batons, bullets or force, they erode the very democratic foundations they are sworn to uphold. The Supreme Court captured this truth in the 2018 Romila Thapar judgment, observing that "dissent is the safety valve of democracy. If it is not allowed, the pressure cooker may burst." Attempts to shut that safety valve through arbitrary detentions, excessive force and crowd-control weapons risk alienating an entire generation whose faith in public institutions is already under severe strain.
The Court has rightly acknowledged that police personnel, too, deserve adequate protection when confronted with violence. But the first duty of a constitutional democracy is to defend civil liberties, not suppress them. That is precisely why a uniform standard operating procedure for handling public protests is urgently needed, one that replaces arbitrary force with restraint.
If India is to be a proud constitutional republic, those in authority must learn to engage with the voices of its youth rather than silence them. Peaceful protest is not a threat to public order; it is one of democracy's strongest safeguards. To deny people their right to be heard is to weaken the very spirit of our Constitution.
