Page 1 of 4

SELF-IMMOLATION DURING PROTESTS: ACT OF BRAVERY OR A TUTORED

DECISION IN HASTE?

by Mr. Abhishek Goyal*

“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed1.”

The concepts of non-violent resistance, civil disobedience and peaceful protests/ demonstrations are not
new to India. In fact, the Indian History perfectly illustrates the power which these concepts and
ideologies possess in eradicating oppression. These notions were widely popularized during our
independence struggle by the father of our nation; Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi,
further, coined and developed the term, ‘Satyagraha’ during that period, which was widely deployed as a
device against the colonial and repressive British regime. Satyagraha is a blend of two Sanskrit words,
being; satya and agraha, which means, “holding onto truth or truth force”. It is, now, universally known
that Mahatma Gandhi was an indefatigable advocate of non-violence and truth, which resulted in bringing
the tyrannical rule of the Britishers to a halt. Significantly, ever since, these weapons have been widely
utilized across the world in confronting injustice and exploitation.

The right to protest is a significant right in a democracy. This right enables control over the unabated
exercise of power(s) by State, besides ensuring participation of an informed citizenry in governance. As
2
per the Hon’ble Supreme Court , right to protest is crucial since, “it strengthens representative democracy
by enabling direct participation in public affairs where individuals and groups are able to express dissent
and grievances, expose the flaws in governance and demand accountability from the State authorities as
well as powerful entities. This right is crucial in a vibrant democracy like India but more so in the Indian
context to aid in the assertion of the rights of the marginalised and poorly represented minorities.”
3
Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Salu Sugathan Someni v. District Police Chief, Kollam ,
while considering the role of protest in democracy, inter alia, observed, “So long as the democracy does
not descend into mobocracy, the protest is paramount as a method of democratic discourse and also as a
mode of dissemination of information. It is, to repeat, at best a method to exert pressure on the legislature
or the executive to change or fine-tune its legislative or administrative policies, as the case may be.”

The basis of this right can be traced back to the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution of India
4 5 6
(“Constitution”), especially that of the provisions under Articles 19(1)(a) , (b) and (c) thereof. The
factum of origin of the right to protest from the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution has been duly
7
acknowledged by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anita Thakur v. State of J&K . As per the Hon’ble Apex
Court, “holding peaceful demonstration in order to air their grievances and to see that their voice is heard
in the relevant quarters is the right of the people. Such a right can be traced to the fundamental freedom
that is guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution.” Significantly, right to
protest is not an unbridled right. In fact, the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution ensure that the

*
Managing Associate at L&L Partners Law Offices, New Delhi.
1
Steven Biko.
2
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 S.C.C. 324 (India).
3
2017 S.C.C. OnLine Ker. 8715 (India).
4
“(1) All citizens shall have the right- (a) to freedom of speech and expression;” (INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a)).
5
“(1) All citizens shall have the right- (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;” (INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(b)).
6
“(1) All citizens shall have the right- (c) to form associations or unions;” (INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(c)).
7
(2016) 15 S.C.C. 525 (India).

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com

 Page 2 of 4

freedom provided therein, which may, inter alia, be exercised in the form of protests/ demonstrations/ etc.,
may be reasonably regulated by State.

Understandably, the right to demonstration/ protest may be exercised for the purpose of expressing
peaceful dissent/ disapproval against State’s action. However, under the garb of protest, no individual is
permitted to take law or legal machinery into his/ her own hand. At the same time, principles of non-
violence and truth necessitate that during the process of these censures, no damage is caused to life,
limb and property/ public property. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimal Gurung v. Union
8
of India , observed, “it is clear that Articles 19(1)(a) and (b) gives constitutional right to all citizens
freedom of speech and expression which includes carrying out public demonstration also but public
demonstration when becomes violent and damages the public and private properties and harm lives of
people it goes beyond fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) and becomes an offence
punishable under law.” The Hon’ble Apex Court has, further, cautioned against the incidents of mob-
violence, lynching, brutality, etc. which may be deployed/ involved during protest(s). In fact, as per the
9
Hon’ble Court , “Nobody has the right to become a self-appointed guardian of the law and forcibly
administer his or her own interpretation of the law on others, especially not with violent means. Mob
violence runs against the very core of our established legal principles since it signals chaos and
lawlessness and the State has a duty to protect its citizens against the illegal and reprehensible acts of
such groups.”

Indian Judiciary has consistently reprimanded the act(s) of lynching, terming the same as unlawful and
10
illegal. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India , has, inter
alia, observed, “No citizen can assault the human dignity of another, for such an action would comatose
the majesty of law.” At the same time, incidents of large-scale destruction of property/ public property, in
the name of agitations, bands, hartals, etc., have been strongly censured by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In
11
fact, in one such instance, the Hon’ble Apex Court , while taking suo motu note/ cognizance of such
12
incidents of violence, sought recommendations from the Committees appointed by it, inter alia, on the
preventive and punitive actions which may be adopted in order to deal with the incidents of protests.
Significantly, the recommendations made by the said Committees were approved, adopted and declared
binding by the Hon’ble Court, until the enactment of an appropriate legislation in this regard. Accordingly,
it was, inter alia, approved: the organizer of protests would meet with the concerned officials of police to
review and revise the route of such demonstrations and law down the steps to be adopted to ensure a
peaceful march or protest; use/ access of all weapons, including, knives, lathis, etc., shall be prohibited
during such demonstrations; Police and State Government(s) shall ensure videography of such protest to
the maximum extent possible; person in charge to supervise the demonstration shall be the
Superintendent of Police (if the situation is confined to the district) and the highest police officer in the
State, where the situation stretches beyond one district; in the event of the demonstrations turn violent,
the officer-in-charge shall ensure that the events are video-graphed through private operators and also
request such further information from the media and others on the incidents in question; etc. The Hon’ble
Court, at the same time, laid down guidelines to be adopted for the assessment and payment of damages
for the losses to property, resultant due to violent mob-demonstrations. Pertinently, as per the Hon’ble
Court, liability for such losses,“will be borne by the actual perpetrators of the crime as well as organisers
of the event giving rise to the liability - to be shared, as finally determined by the High Court or Supreme
Court as the case may be.”

8
(2018) 15 S.C.C. 480 (India).
9
Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 713 (India).
10
(2018) 9 S.C.C. 501 (India).
11
Destruction of Public & Private Properties v. State of A.P., (2009) 5 S.C.C. 212 (India).
12
“two committees were appointed; one headed by a retired Judge of this Court, Justice K.T. Thomas…..other Committee was
headed by Mr F.S. Nariman, a senior member of the legal profession…” (Refer to Destruction of Public & Private Properties v. State
of A.P., (2009) 5 S.C.C. 212 (India)).

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com

 Page 3 of 4

It is noteworthy, the Indian Courts have further advocated for the maintenance of an equilibrium during
protests, emphasizing on the duty of Police to maintain law and order and that of the protestors; not to
13
break law. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Beenu Rawat v. Union of India observed,
“Right to life and right to liberty are of historical importance. Rise of modern democratic State is
attributable to a long-drawn battle waged by ordinary people against the sovereign power. The law is now
well settled that the State or its functionaries cannot deprive any person of his life which includes the right
to live with human dignity except in accordance with law. The maximum threat to such fundamental right
is perceptible when any kind of protest or agitation is directed against the police force for reasons which
are self-evident. Police is licenced to carry arms for protecting the people. This itself creates a situation
where the power of arms may be misused under the mistaken belief in the absolutism of the police power
or on account of lack of sensitivity to the democratic rights of the people to register peaceful protest,
against wrongs, especially that of public functionaries. The submissions on behalf of the respondents that
nobody can be permitted to paralyse the functioning of police or other State institutions in a name of
public protest cannot be rejected off hand because it is only a corollary of the right to protest peacefully;
proverbially the other side of the coin which corroborates the well-accepted principle that rights without
duties tend to degenerate into licence for misuse of rights. In a given case, the facts may lead to such
conclusions.”

Despite the directives of several Courts, unfortunately, the incidents of violent protests/ demonstrations
are a common occurrence across in India. However, some of these ‘so-called revolt/ revolution’ may,
unfortunately, involve adoption of grave and drastic measures, which may even result into the loss of life,
limb and/ or property. Self-immolation, regrettably, is one such heinous act, often adopted by the
protestors to demonstrate their disapproval. Seen in correct perspective, self-immolation, simply
tantamount to suicide, committed in the name of protest or some propaganda. The irony of the event is
that the perpetrator of such an act ceases to exist and fails to enjoy the fruits of his labour, if any,
resultant due to such atrociousness. Understandably, this is one of the reasons why self-immolation as a
form of protest is vehemently criticized across the world. In the words of Mehmet Murat ildan, “Self-
immolation as a way to protest against the injustices or as a way to fight for freedom cannot be accepted!
All the fights must be done in the dimension of existence! Your body is your road to everywhere; if you
destroy it, you lose all the roads!” Lamentably, the existing law/ legal provisions, though, seeming
sufficient, has/ have failed to cause enough deterrence to the misguided minds of the protestors who
favour and profess self-immolation as a means to express condemnation. Under the Indian Penal Code,
14
1860 (“IPC”) provisions exist which, inter alia, penalize the offences of; attempt to commit suicide ,
15 16 17
abetment of suicide of child or insane person , abetment of suicide , public nuisance , etc. However,
these penal provisions have failed to eradicate the menace of self-immolation in its entirety and this
barbaric practice continues unabated till date, in the name of protests, remonstrations, etc.

13
(2013) 16 S.C.C. 430 (India).
14
“Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall he punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both” (The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Imperial
Legislative Council, 1860 (India). Sec. 309).
15
“If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delir-ious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of
intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life,
or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” (The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Imperial
Legislative Council, 1860 (India). Sec. 305).
16
“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” (The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45,
Imperial Legislative Council, 1860 (India). Sec. 306).
17
“A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury,
danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily
cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is
not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage” (The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Imperial
Legislative Council, 1860 (India). Sec. 268).

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com

 Page 4 of 4

Self-immolation or a threat thereof as a form of protest merely acts to put legal and executive machinery
in a state of hostage. It goes anti-thesis to the concepts of non-violence, non-cooperation and
Satyagraha, which were the basis of our country’s battle against Britishers. Practice of self-immolation,
besides demonstrating a deformed psyche of its proponents, amounts to a complete disregard for human
existence. History is witness to the fact that such incidents have resulted into more disapprovals,
agitations and a state of unrest, instead of fructifying and nourishing the ‘so-called revolt/ revolution’
Unfortunately, many such incidents are incited by exponents of criminal mentality for their own ulterior
designs/ motives. Therefore, it is incumbent on individuals not to be swayed away by momentary and
misguided designs to fuel illegal, unjustified and immoral propagandas. It is, further, obligatory on the
participants of any protest to carefully analyze the pros and cons of their revolt/ protest; commencing from
a decision on its underlying principles/ guidelines/ cause to the modes proposed to be adopted during the
process; ensuring peace and safety in the entire process till its culmination. Suicide in any form, including
that of self-immolation cannot be adopted or viewed as an acceptable mode to demonstrate
discontentment. Rather, it is to be understood and appreciated that such incidents mutilate the basis of
any revolt and bring more shame and disrepute, than glory, to its cause. Clearly, there is a thin line that
demarcates a protest for a cause from a protest for propaganda. As a responsible citizen of a country,
this demarcation needs to be well understood and stringently respected/ followed for a protest to yield
results and democracy to thrive. As James A. Garfield once remarked, “Suicide is not a remedy”. This
holds true even to the instances of self-immolation during protests.

Published in Article section of www.manupatra.com