Sahidul Hasan Khokon
The recent Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests have sparked an important national debate—not merely about the right to protest, but about the constitutional limits within which that right must be exercised. While public discourse has largely focused on the confrontation between protesters and law enforcement, the larger lesson lies in understanding that democracy demands both liberty and responsibility.
The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). These rights, however, are not absolute. Articles 19(2) and 19(3) expressly permit reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, security of the State and public safety. India’s constitutional framework therefore protects peaceful dissent while recognising the State’s duty to safeguard democratic institutions and maintain law and order.
The administration’s handling of the CJP protests reflected this balance. For weeks, demonstrators were permitted to assemble peacefully at Jantar Mantar, a designated venue for public demonstrations. The dispute arose only when organisers called for a march towards Parliament despite publicly announced restrictions and heightened security arrangements around the Monsoon Session. Permission to hold a sit-in at Jantar Mantar did not extend to an unauthorised march into one of the country’s most sensitive security zones.
This distinction is central to understanding the events that followed. A peaceful protest enjoys constitutional protection; an attempt to cross security barricades and enter restricted areas raises entirely different legal and operational concerns. Democracies across the world impose enhanced security around their legislatures, recognising that the protection of constitutional institutions is itself a democratic obligation.
Equally important is the question of violence. Public reporting indicates that the confrontation resulted in injuries to both protesters and police personnel, with each side offering sharply different accounts of how the violence began. Those competing claims deserve impartial investigation. Yet one principle remains clear: stone-pelting, attacks on law enforcement personnel and destruction of public property cannot be regarded as legitimate instruments of democratic protest. Violence diminishes the moral authority of any movement, irrespective of the justice of its underlying cause.
Public property is another often-overlooked casualty of violent demonstrations. Damaged buses, broken barricades and vandalised infrastructure are ultimately repaired using public funds. The cost is borne not by governments alone but by ordinary taxpayers. Likewise, police personnel are not abstract representatives of the State; they are citizens entrusted with maintaining public order, often under difficult and dangerous conditions. Behind every uniform is an individual with a family, and assaults on officers deserve the same public concern as assaults on civilians.
The police, however, also bear significant constitutional responsibilities. Democratic policing requires patience, restraint and accountability. The use of force must never be the first response to public protest. Modern policing is founded on a graded approach—dialogue, negotiation, repeated warnings, physical barriers and only then, if necessary, the minimum force required to restore order. Where allegations of excessive force arise, they should be independently examined through judicial and institutional processes. Accountability strengthens public confidence in law enforcement; it does not weaken it.
Indian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently reflected this balanced approach. In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1973), the Supreme Court recognised the right to hold public meetings while affirming the State’s authority to regulate them through reasonable restrictions. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court emphasised balancing the rights of protesters with those of residents and the broader public. Most significantly, in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), the Shaheen Bagh judgment reaffirmed that protests should ordinarily take place in designated areas and should not indefinitely disrupt public spaces or the rights of others.
These decisions establish a simple constitutional proposition: the right to protest is fundamental, but it exists alongside the State’s duty to preserve public order and protect democratic institutions.
The recent CJP protests therefore offer lessons for all stakeholders. Governments must continue to facilitate peaceful dissent, engage constructively with public grievances and ensure that police action remains lawful and proportionate. Protest organisers must ensure that demonstrations remain peaceful and do not descend into violence or attempts to breach lawful security restrictions. Citizens, too, have a role in recognising that rights and responsibilities are inseparable.
Ultimately, democracy is neither strengthened by suppressing peaceful protest nor by normalising violence in the name of dissent. It flourishes when disagreements are expressed peacefully, institutions function without intimidation, and both citizens and the State remain equally committed to the rule of law.
The enduring lesson of the recent protests is that constitutional democracy is sustained not by choosing between liberty and order, but by preserving both. Peaceful protest remains one of the Republic’s greatest strengths. Violence, lawlessness and attacks on public institutions or public servants undermine not only the immediate cause they seek to advance, but also the democratic values that make dissent possible in the first place.