The siblings were to meet the family of the 19-year-old woman who had succumbed to her injuries after a grievous instance of alleged sexual assault. Following a round of lathi-charge, the duo was brought back to New Delhi and was charged under Section 188 of the IPC which involves disobedience of an order by a public servant.

As per the police, the FIR was lodged against the Gandhis and about 200 party workers, under Section 269 (unlawfully or negligently spreading infection of any disease dangerous to life), and Section 270 (malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life) and under Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act. Not maintaining social distancing or wearing masks was the justification of the police for the arrests. In fact, Section 144 of CrPC, which prohibits assembly of more than four people, was imposed in the village after the death of the woman.

It is essential to place in context, the notion of civil disobedience, considering the times that we are living in, where protests have become an everyday reality. India has an undisputed reputation when it comes to non-violent resistance. Mahatma Gandhi, through his doctrine of Satyagraha, gave a fillip to the Independence Movement. While he acknowledged the influence of American philosopher Henry David Thoreau and his essays on civil disobedience, Gandhi’s example became the benchmark for movements concerning civil rights globally. He went on to inspire leaders such as Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr.

Ironically, for a nation that guided the world on such a principle of agreeing to disagree with one’s government, India also bore witness to a contentious period – the Emergency. Imposed by former Prime Minister late Indira Gandhi between June 1975 and March 1977, the 21-month lockdown witnessed the suspension of elections, curbing of civil liberties, imprisonment of the PM’s political opponents, as well as censorship of the fourth estate. As every form of dissent was muffled, a national daily carried a blank editorial space, defining the nation’s zeitgeist. While India might not have declared an Emergency since then, violations of our right to peaceful assembly without arms, under Article 19 (1) (b) have occurred time and again. A recent instance from our pre-pandemic memory involves how peaceful protesters agitating against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) were treated by the police. On December 13, 2019, students from Jamia Milia Islamia University undertook a peaceful protest to the Parliament. But they were lathi-charged and attacked with tear gas which led to violent clashes. Two days later, police forcefully entered the Jamia campus and assaulted students, which drew global condemnation.

It is worth recalling that India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN and part of the International Bill of Human Rights. And our Supreme Court, referring to the 2011 Ramlila Maidan case, has clarified that Section 144 of CrPC can be invoked only in case of a ‘real’ perception of threat to public peace. It cannot be used to prevent the legitimate expression of opinion or exercising democratic rights. Setting aside concerns of COVID, in the context of protests, which involves several attendees, is not an option. However, the act of civil disobedience is a hallmark of a true democracy and it’s essential that even in the time of the pandemic, protesters find a way to express their dissent while honouring the rules that govern the hour. It falls upon the government to ensure peaceful protests are not crushed in the service of creating echo chambers of opinion, which would be detrimental to democracy in the long run.