"Student protests at Jantar Mantar reveal democracy's accountability deficit beyond elections"
Article 19(1)(b)
constitutional right to assemble peaceably and without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions
Proportionality doctrine
restrictions on fundamental rights must be the least restrictive means necessary to achieve a legitimate state aim
The right to peaceful protest is among the most foundational guarantees of Indian constitutional democracy. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Both rights are subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and Article 19(3) respectively — on grounds such as sovereignty, public order, and decency — but the Supreme Court has consistently held that these restrictions must satisfy the tests of proportionality and necessity, not mere administrative convenience.
The hunger strike and street protest as instruments of political expression draw on Gandhian traditions of voluntary self-suffering as moral witness. Post-independence India has seen these instruments deployed repeatedly — from prolonged fasts demanding repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958, to environmental agitations for river conservation. Each instance has tested the limits of the state's duty to preserve life against the protester's assertion of bodily autonomy as political speech. The designated protest site at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi itself reflects the state's attempt to channel dissent into bounded, manageable zones — a governance choice that raises questions about whether such channelling respects or dilutes the fundamental right.
Landmark judgments including Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary (2012) and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) have reinforced that restrictions on assembly and expression must be proportionate, time-bound, and subject to judicial review. These rulings establish that the state cannot use administrative convenience or speculative public-order concerns as a blanket justification for dispersing peaceful assemblies.
Democracy, as a system of governance, is constitutionally instantiated through elections — but its substantive health depends on continuous accountability mechanisms that operate between electoral cycles. The article under review articulates this distinction sharply: elections confer legitimacy, but trust and empathy are the daily currency of democratic governance. When formal channels of policy feedback — parliamentary oversight, independent regulators, civil society consultation — are weak or captured, citizens resort to street-based assertion as the residual accountability mechanism.
Collective action theory offers two complementary frameworks for understanding why protests scale rapidly. Economist Timur Kuran's concept of preference falsification explains how individuals suppress their true preferences in public when expression appears socially or politically costly; once a critical threshold of visible dissent is crossed, suppressed grievances cascade rapidly into open participation. Granovetter's threshold model of collective behaviour similarly shows that participation snowballs once a sufficient number of early movers absorb the initial risk, lowering the perceived cost for subsequent participants. …
Democracy's superior virtue lies in the fact that it calls into activity
Which one of the following factors constitutes the best safeguard of liberty in a liberal democracy?
With reference to the constitutional right to protest in India, consider the following statements:
1.The right to assemble peaceably and without arms is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
2.Restrictions on this right can be imposed under Article 19(3) on grounds including public order and sovereignty.
3.The Supreme Court in Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary (2012) held that dispersal of peaceful assemblies requires no judicial oversight.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following best describes the concept of 'preference falsification' in the context of protest movements?
Consider the following statements about the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) judgment:
1.The Supreme Court held that freedom of the press is a subset of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
2.The Court ruled that indefinite internet shutdowns are constitutionally impermissible and must be subject to periodic review.
3.The judgment established that restrictions on fundamental rights must satisfy the test of proportionality.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Assertion (A): When governments allow protests to escalate into law-and-order problems rather than addressing substantive grievances, they effectively displace political accountability onto the police.
Reason (R): The police are constitutionally mandated to resolve policy disputes between citizens and the government.
Which of the following is correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account