The CJP protest: Democracy, dissent and the rule of law

A confident democracy is not measured by the absence of protests. It is measured by its ability to accommodate dissent while preserving public order

The NEET-related protests at Jantar Mantar and the proposed march to Parliament underscore the delicate balance between the constitutional right to peaceful protest and the State’s duty to maintain public order. The challenge is to ensure that neither democratic freedoms nor public institutions become casualties of confrontation

A constitutional perspective on the right to protest, public order and institutional responsibility.

The developments at Jantar Mantar and the proposed march towards the Parliament of India once again bring into focus a constitutional question that every mature democracy must repeatedly answer: How should a democratic State balance the fundamental right to protest with its equally important obligation to maintain public order?

The concerns raised by students regarding the NEET examination deserve serious attention. Educational examinations shape the future of millions of young Indians, and any perception of unfairness naturally creates anxiety and distrust. Instead of viewing such concerns as merely a law-and-order issue, the Government should consider constituting a Parliamentary Committee to examine the shortcomings and recommend institutional reforms that inspire greater public confidence.

Peaceful protest is not merely permitted under the Constitution; it is one of democracy’s greatest strengths. Citizens must have adequate space to express disagreement with government policies and administrative decisions. However, every democratic right carries a corresponding constitutional responsibility. A protest march towards Parliament is entirely legitimate, provided it does not obstruct the functioning of Parliament or seek to diminish the dignity of one of the Republic’s highest constitutional institutions.

During my years in policing, I learned that most peaceful protests do not fail because of the protesters or the police; they fail when communication between the two breaks down. The objective of democratic policing is not merely to enforce the law but to facilitate the lawful exercise of constitutional rights while preserving public order.

The available visuals suggest that while the Delhi Police handled a challenging situation, there remains room for improvement in operational planning. It is not publicly clear whether a structured negotiation regarding routes, timings and restrictions had been concluded with the protest leadership before the march commenced. Such advance coordination often prevents unnecessary confrontation and builds confidence between citizens and law-enforcement agencies. The detention of Sonam Wangchuk for medical intervention has also generated public debate. Similar preventive interventions have been recognised by constitutional courts under appropriate circumstances. In this instance, the Delhi High Court’s directions are available on record. Comparable police interventions have occurred in several States whenever immediate medical or humanitarian concerns arose.

At the same time, protest leadership carries responsibilities that extend beyond mobilising public opinion. Organisers must ensure that participants remain peaceful and that no individual or group crosses constitutional or legal boundaries, resulting in violence or disruption of public order.

Delhi, as home to nearly twenty-three million residents and the seat of India’s constitutional institutions, requires careful balancing between democratic freedoms and civic stability. The visual evidence from the protest also suggests that police deployment, manpower and equipment could have been organised more professionally. Modern crowd management depends not merely upon numbers but upon planning, communication, intelligence gathering and calibrated responses. Visible preparedness itself often reduces the possibility of confrontation.

Now that dialogue between the protest representatives and the Union Government has commenced, responsibility equally shifts to the leadership of the movement. Genuine democratic protests can quickly lose legitimacy if mischievous elements, political opportunists or those seeking confrontation succeed in hijacking the movement. Maintaining discipline is, therefore, as important as articulating demands.

India’s Constitution protects the right of every citizen - irrespective of age, gender or social background - to protest peacefully. However, democratic movements cannot substitute constitutional processes nor seek to undermine other organs established by the Constitution. Rights and responsibilities must always travel together.

Senior officers of the Delhi Police should personally supervise such situations and maintain the highest standards of operational preparedness. Professional policing not only protects public order but also strengthens India’s international image as a confident constitutional democracy capable of accommodating dissent without disorder.

Political leaders, irrespective of party affiliation, have every democratic right to participate in public movements. Yet leadership also demands restraint. Whenever any participant attempts to cross legal limits, responsible political leadership must intervene promptly to prevent escalation.

The Government, on its part, should respond to genuine public grievances without unnecessary delay. Administrative bottlenecks and institutional shortcomings should never be allowed to accumulate to the point where young citizens lose confidence in public institutions. Equally, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Delhi Police should continue refining a long-term strategy that facilitates peaceful democratic protests while ensuring public order with the minimum necessary use of force. Democratic policing succeeds through communication and preparation far more than through coercion.

India’s Generation Z deserves appreciation. They are among the country’s most educated and aware generations. Their energy, innovation and constitutional awareness can become a tremendous democratic strength when channelled peacefully and responsibly.

Finally, accountability must exist at every level. Government departments responsible for educational administration should ensure that legitimate concerns are addressed within a reasonable timeframe. The Union Education Minister must continue responding to these issues with maturity, fairness and transparency, ensuring that every decision is guided by merit, facts and the rule of law.

A confident democracy is not measured by the absence of protests. It is measured by its ability to accommodate dissent while preserving public order, respecting constitutional institutions and ensuring that both the Government and its citizens remain equally accountable to the Constitution.

India’s Generation Z deserves appreciation. They are among the country’s most educated and aware generations. Their energy, innovation and constitutional awareness can become a tremendous democratic strength when channelled peacefully and responsibly

Gurinder Singh Dhillon, IPS (Retd.) served as Additional Director General of Police; Views presented are personal.