Right to Protest: Fundamental Right, With a Condition | CLAT Explainer

VIDEO EXPLAINER | 10 OCTOBER 2026

Ahead of a large protest planned at Jantar Mantar on 10 October 2026, the Delhi Police denied permission. Prohibitory orders were issued in the New Delhi district, mobile internet was curbed around Jantar Mantar, metro stations were closed and some trains to New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin were cancelled. The matter reached the Supreme Court, where a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant said that an entire city cannot be shut down citing protests. All of this raises a question every CLAT aspirant must be able to answer: is the right to protest a fundamental right? The short answer is yes, but with an important condition.

What happened in Delhi

The Delhi Police gave three reasons for refusing permission: short notice (the guidelines require 10 days’ notice), earlier non-compliance, and security. Prohibitory orders were imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the provision that replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Mobile internet was restricted in the area around Jantar Mantar, several metro stations were shut, and some trains were cancelled.

What the Supreme Court said

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made four points, as reported:

• An entire city cannot be shut down citing protests.
• There would be no complete prohibition on the metro.
• Restrictions must be proportionate and must not cause undue hardship.
• The right to protest is fundamental, but must be exercised within applicable laws and permissions.

The constitutional basis

Two freedoms in Article 19(1) carry the right to protest. Article 19(1)(a) protects the freedom of speech and expression, and a demonstration is a form of expression. Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Note the two built-in conditions: peaceably and without arms.

Neither freedom is absolute. Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on the right of assembly in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. (Restrictions on speech fall under Article 19(2).) The legal debate is therefore rarely about whether the right exists; it is about whether a particular restriction is reasonable.

Six cases that shape the right

1. Kameshwar Prasad v State of Bihar (1962). A demonstration is a form of expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) and (b). But there is no fundamental right to strike.

2. Himat Lal K. Shah v Commissioner of Police (1973). The State can regulate meetings on public streets, but it cannot ban them outright.

3. In re Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012). The right of peaceful assembly and protest is a fundamental right. The midnight police action of 4–5 June 2011 was held to be excessive.

4. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (2018). A blanket ban on protests at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club is not allowed. The right to protest must be balanced with the rights of residents, and the Court ordered guidelines.

5. Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (2020, the Shaheen Bagh case). Public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely; dissent should be expressed in designated places. In the 2021 review, the Court said the “right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere”.

6. T.K. Rangarajan v State of Tamil Nadu (2003). Government employees have no fundamental right to strike.

And on the internet curbs that so often accompany protests, Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) requires restrictions to be necessary and proportionate, the orders to be published, and the orders to be subject to review.

Putting it together

Read as a whole, the law draws a clear line. Protest is a fundamental right, rooted in Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). The State may regulate it, for example through notice requirements and public-order restrictions, but a total ban, whether on a site like Jantar Mantar or on a whole city, goes too far. At the same time, protesters cannot occupy public roads indefinitely, and there is no fundamental right to strike. In one line: peaceful, unarmed, and at a designated place.

Sources

Deccan Herald, India TV, ThePrint and India.com (9–10 Oct 2026) on the Delhi Police decision and restrictions; The Quint, The Wire and Deccan Chronicle (9–10 Oct 2026) on the Supreme Court hearing; the Constitution of India; the Supreme Court judgments in Kameshwar Prasad, Himat Lal K. Shah, T.K. Rangarajan, In re Ramlila Maidan Incident, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Amit Sahni and Anuradha Bhasin.