The news spark with social media debate, that is protest march need permission or just to notify police about the march before a week. Jantar mantar protest
“The CJP Saurabh before media briefing given the statment about the protest march permission, he said that stop using the word permission instead of use notify or intimation.
He said it’s our Constitutional fundamental rights, there no any need to take permission.
Permission is british era (goro ka raaj) colonial mind set concept, it’s 80 year of independent but still it’s brain washed by some political and authority that should take permission before you protest.
When our freedom fighter leaders such Mahatma Gandhi before dandiya march or any march against british , did he gone before british and asked give me 2 hour permission to protest?
Against whom the seating government, you are going to do protest march does they allow to do so? It’s not like that, he also requested to Media channels that don’t use word permission?”
Protest march , permission in India and case laws of Supreme court
There is no any specific provision for taking permission to protest march, it’s understanding through various case laws and linkage of Article and sections of laws.
When study Article 19 of the Constitution of India, it’s sub Clause 1 (a, b) protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
- (a)Freedom of speech and expression
- (b)To assemble peaceably and without arms,
- (c)To form associations or Union,
- (d)All citizens shall have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
All the above rights are reasonable restriction on exercise when it’s affect the sovereignty and integrity of India etc, the state make law and restrict certain, to protect public order etc.
Section 163 of BNSS (s/144 crpc) power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
What is section 163 of BNSS? Protest march jantar mantar
Section 163 BNSS (s/ 144 of crpc), power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.
- In the opinion of a District magistrate, a sub Divisional magistrate or any executive magistrate,
- Immediate Prevention or speedy remedy is desirable such magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case, served in the manner provided by section 153.
- Section 153, service or notification of order.
- Direct any person to abstain from certain act or to take certain order in respect to certain property in his posession or under his management.
- Immediate Prevention or speedy remedy is desirable such magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case, served in the manner provided by section 153.
- An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual
- or to person residing in particular place or area,
- or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
- No order under this section shall remain in force for more than 2 month from making.
- Proviso, Government notice it not exceed 6 month from the date order made by magistrate.
Romesh Thappar vs state of Madras 1950, freedom of speech case
Romesh Thappar vs state of Madras it held that liberty of press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression.
In shreya singhal case, in which it set aside the section 66A of the information technology act. It’s violates the right to freedom of speech and expression and it’s declared, Unconstitutional by SC.
SC rule and guideline protest march, Hemant lal kesha vs commissioner of police & kishan mazdoor sakti sangharsh 2018
In this case Hemant lal kesha vs commissioner of police & kishan mazdoor sakti sangharsh.
The SC reasoning, between the right to peaceful assembly and the necessity to maintain public order:-
- Authority can regulate but they can not put total ban for protests, proportionality and necessity has to be looked.
- They shall not put blanket ban for the protest, if you blanket banning make clear written reason so that protestor may go for appeal.
- The authority repeated s/144crpc(163 BNSS) order, scrutinize to determine arbitrary or reasonable restriction.
Ramlila maidan incident vs Home secretary Union of India & others 2012, protest rights
- Right to Peaceful Assembly:
- The court held that citizens have a fundamental right to assemble peacefully and protest under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
- Though it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) for public order.
- It is Unconstitutional abuse of power of police, force against non- violent assembly.
In this case Court awarded compensation to victim who protesting peacefully and suffered injuries during massive force used by police which is Unconstitutional.
Amit Sahni vs Commissioner of Police, Shaheen Bagh case
The Supreme court held public ways and spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely, and protests must be expressed only in designated places.
Delhi Police denies CJP permission to hold protest at Jantar Mantar on 10th October 2026
Joint Commissioner said the decision to deny permission was taken in view of the party’s previous failure to adhere to Delhi Police guidelines.
And its own undertakings, as well as the prevailing law-and-order situation, public safety and traffic regulations in the New Delhi area.