Protest peacefully

Apex court has done well to uphold citizens’ right to make their voices be heard; onus is on protesters to follow rules

There are good reasons in principle for the Supreme Court's lifting of a blanket ban on protests at the Jantar Mantar announced by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) last year. The Green Tribunal, hearing a Public Interest Litigation submitted by residents in the area complaining about declining environmental standards, had found merit in their argument and came to their rescue by ordering the authorities to look for an alternate venue for mass protests, which eventually the Ram Lila Maidan in the Capital became, but to the detriment of the space for voices to be heard. Against a total of about 24,000 requests received for permission to organising protests in the preceding years, just about 11 applications were received ever since the NGT's ban. So, the NGT's order had triggered serious resentment from all quarters which should now end. The ‘bonus' in the apex court's order, however, was the most surprising: The famed Boat Club Grounds around the India Gate central hexagon in New Delhi, which until the 1990s was the most preferred venue for protests, too was removed from the purview of the ban.

While it may be difficult to pin down the exact number of protests the Capital sees each year, the fact remains that in a country governed by the rule of law, the right to non-violent protest is a basic right and integral to the right to freedom of expression. This right can never be taken away, neither by the Government nor the courts, though a line must be drawn between what may be legitimate and illegitimate protest. This, more so at a time when we are living in an increasingly complex world and dissent is both our inalienable right but also susceptible to misuse aimed only at provoking societal tensions. The past decade, for example, has seen more people taking to the streets than even before in post-1947 Indian history. Jantar Mantar has been associated with many mass protests in our recent history. Be it Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement, farmers' protests or those demanding justice for rape survivors in the wake of the Nirbhaya case. Even political parties and politicians have made a beeline for Jantar Mantar to register dissent. It is also true that the NGT's ban took into account genuine concerns. For long, residents in the area had been suffering high levels of noise pollution particularly due to the unregulated use of loudspeakers, amplifiers, and drums. On this count, the top court in overturning the NGT ban has wisely upheld the cause of peaceful agitation whilst simultaneously instructing the Delhi Police Commissioner to frame guidelines on the dos and don'ts for agitators to follow. It is to be hoped that in the same spirit as respecting the freedom of expression, agitators will preserve civil forms of protest and not let demonstrations spill over into violence, destruction and/or defacement of public property and causing massive inconvenience to fellow citizens. When conducted responsibly, protests hold great potential to bring about change. Boundaries have now been drawn and the balance now needs to be maintained. Making a distinction between protests/demonstrations which have correctly been allowed at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club but with pollution curbs and responsibilities as they are a democratic right and help in fostering a participative democracy, and mass rallies which lead to chaos, damage of public areas, inconvenience the general public and are a safety concern, is vital.