The Supreme Court reaffirmed that peaceful protests are protected by law, observing that police excesses cannot be justified. Stressing democratic values, the Court said, “Just because there is an agitation does not mean there should be lathi charge. Self-evolved discipline is needed.”
The Supreme Court observed that the right to hold peaceful protests is guaranteed by law and that police excesses against such agitations cannot be justified, while taking up a batch of petitions seeking pan-India guidelines to ensure that peaceful demonstrations are permitted.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made the oral observations, adding that the life of every individual, including that of police personnel, is important.
Affirming the constitutional protection extended to peaceful assembly, the Chief Justice remarked,
“Right to peaceful protest is absolutely guaranteed. That cannot be denied. Merely because there is agitation cannot justify police excess.”
Calling for restraint on both sides during such demonstrations, he emphasised the need for discipline that comes from within, rather than being imposed by force,
“Just because there is an agitation does not mean there should be lathi charge. Self-evolved discipline is needed which is essential to democratic process.”
A protocol, and uniformity across States
The Bench indicated that it was inclined to look beyond the immediate controversy towards a framework of general application. Noting that the issue was not confined to the national capital, the Chief Justice observed that there ought to be a settled protocol governing protests, one that guaranteed space for demonstration while allowing genuinely disruptive elements to be dealt with:
“There should be a protocol in place. There should be proper space and no restriction. But if there is some anti-social elements etc that can be taken care of. This is not a question of Delhi only. Uniformity of protocol is needed.”
The framing signals that the Court is considering pan-India directions rather than a fact-specific inquiry into a single incident — a recurrence of the approach the Supreme Court has taken in the past, where the absence of a uniform standard has led it to lay down interim guidelines to hold the field until the legislature or the executive acts.
The petitions had been brought in the wake of the use of force against protesters at Jantar Mantar in Delhi and during agitations in Bihar, and counsel pressed the gravity of the police action.
Advocate Fauzia Shakil, appearing for one of the petitioners, alleged that automatic weapons had been deployed against demonstrators during a bandh in Siwan, Bihar,
“AK-47 used yesterday.”
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, also appearing for a petitioner, pressed for relief of national scope, pointing to the situation beyond Delhi,
“Bihar also had a lot of attacks on students. All India order is needed.”
The Bench was, however, careful to keep both sides of the equation in view. When a lawyer drew attention to the injuries suffered by police and security personnel in the course of such protests, submitting, “My lord, the police officers were lynched! We also need to be heard,”
Justice Bagchi responded that the protection the Court was speaking of was not one-sided,
“Life of every individual irrespective of who they are is important.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, assured the Court of the government’s cooperation, stating, “We will assist the court dispassionately.”
The Bench directed that all petitions relating to the issue be heard together on Tuesday, July 28.
Background: the Jantar Mantar protest and the lathi charge
The petitions arise against the backdrop of the agitation that convulsed central Delhi through July. The protest began in June 2026 on a call by the online collective Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), against repeated leaks of examination question papers and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
It gathered momentum after climate activist Sonam Wangchuk joined the agitation and began a hunger strike in solidarity; he was later removed from the protest site and taken to hospital by the Delhi Police, who cited his deteriorating health, and ended his 26-day fast at Medanta Hospital in Gurugram on the night of July 23.
The demonstration culminated in a call for a “Sansad Chalo” march towards Parliament on July 20, for which the police had cautioned that no permission had been granted. After demonstrators gathered in large numbers, clashes broke out, and allegations emerged of lathi charges, the use of tear gas and violent action by the police against the student protesters allegations the Delhi Police have disputed. Similar demonstrations, and similar complaints of police action, have been reported from Bihar.
The Jantar Mantar protest itself was called off on July 25, after Pradhan tendered his resignation as Education Minister conceding the agitation’s central demand.
The litigation over the manner in which the protests were policed, however, has continued, and it is that strand which the Supreme Court has now taken up with a view to laying down protections of general application
Case Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others