"Police Accountability and Due Process in Handling Protests Examined"
Due Process
requirement that state action follow fair, just, and reasonable procedure, not merely any procedure prescribed by law
Least Invasiveness
judicial principle requiring police to use the minimum force necessary before escalating to more harmful methods
The right to protest is a constitutionally protected expression of democratic participation in India, flowing from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (right to assemble peaceably and without arms). These rights are, however, subject to reasonable restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(3) on grounds including public order and sovereignty. The constitutional framework thus creates a deliberate tension: the state has a legitimate interest in maintaining order, but that interest cannot be used as a pretext to suppress lawful dissent.
The procedural dimension of this tension is governed by Article 21, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) fundamentally expanded this guarantee by holding that the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable — not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. This effectively imported the Anglo-American concept of due process into Indian constitutional law, making procedural fairness a justiciable right rather than a legislative courtesy.
Police powers to disperse assemblies are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), particularly Sections 129–131, which authorise executive magistrates and police officers to disperse unlawful assemblies using force. Crucially, these statutory powers are supplemented by administrative standing orders and judicial guidelines that prescribe the manner in which force may be used — creating a layered accountability framework that is often tested in practice.
The principle of due process in the context of police action against protesters operates at two levels. The first is substantive: the force used must be proportionate to the threat posed, and the assembly must actually be unlawful before dispersal powers are invoked. The second is procedural: specific steps must be followed before and during dispersal, including warnings, graduated escalation, and documentation. The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in the Ramlila Maidan Incident case is the landmark authority here. The Court held that police action against sleeping protesters in the middle of the night was disproportionate and violated Articles 19 and 21, and it underlined that the principle of least invasiveness must govern police conduct — meaning the least harmful method capable of achieving the legitimate aim must be used first. …
In essence, what does 'Due Process of Law' mean?
A legislation which confers on the executive or administrative authority an unguided and uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of application of law violates which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India?
With reference to the right to protest in India, consider the following statements:
1.The right to assemble peaceably is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) and is subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds of public order.
2.The Supreme Court in the Ramlila Maidan Incident case (2012) held that police action against protesters must satisfy the principle of 'least invasiveness'.
3.CrPC Section 144 empowers a police officer to unilaterally declare any assembly unlawful without magistrate involvement.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Supreme Court's ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) is significant in the context of Article 21 primarily because it held that:
Which one of the following best describes the constitutional basis for a citizen to approach the Supreme Court directly when fundamental rights are violated by police excess during a protest?
Assertion (A): The use of pellet guns against civilian protesters in a crowd-control situation is prima facie inconsistent with the constitutional principle of proportionality under Articles 14 and 21.
Reason (R): The proportionality standard requires that the harm caused by state action must not exceed what is strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, and less harmful alternatives must be exhausted first.
Select the correct answer using the codes given below:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account