Three farm laws, namely the Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act,

the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, and the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection)
Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, were framed by the Indian Parliament and passed
by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on 17th and 20th September 2020, respectively.

Farmers developed a fear that these actions would systematically eliminate the MSP, among other
concerns. This situation prompted farmer protests that began in the states of Haryana and Punjab but
quickly spread to the borders of the National Capital, Delhi. [ 2 ] The aim of this article is not to discuss
farm laws, but to address another critical element of protest: the struggle between the right to protest
and the right to movement.

There were three types of petitions filed before the Hon'ble apex court[3] regarding farm laws and
farmers protests, one of which was filed by residents of neighbouring regions of the protest site seeking
compensation for the inconvenience caused to their fundamental right to move freely within India's
territories, as well as their right to conduct business and trade. While the court made no ruling on the
matter, it reignited the controversy that erupted earlier in 2020 during the Shaheen Bagh protests
against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2020. (CAA).

 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Security OF THE RIGHT TO PROTEST-

The protests during the freedom struggle laid the groundwork for independent India, making protests an
indispensible part of Indian culture and history. In the legal sense, protest is characterised as "a formal
declaration in which a personal opposition or disapproval of an act is expressed." [3] The right to protest
is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution's Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b), and
Article 19(1)(c). That is stated;

ARTICLE 19[5]–Protection of such rights, such as freedom of expression and association.

(1) Every person has the right

(a) to freedom of expression and speech;

(b) to assemble in a peaceful and non-armed manner

c) to organise into associations or unions;

Although the term 'protest' is not explicitly stated, these three articles together provide the right to
protest, in which any person has the right to peacefully demonstrate against any topic that is not in the
public or national interest. The supreme court has occasionally upheld the universal right to peaceful
protest. The Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India and Ors.[6] is a well-known
authority in this regard, in which the Supreme Court stressed the critical nature of the right to protest in
a democracy. According to Justice B.S. Chauhan;

“Citizens have an inalienable right to free assembly and dissent that cannot be taken away by arbitrary
executive or legislative action.”

However, as the adage goes, 'powers come with obligations.' As a result, certain criteria must be met in
order to exercise one's constitutional right to protest. Protests should not be destructive to public
property and should adhere to the rule of law. Article 19(2), 19(3), and 19(4)[7] impose certain
limitations on exercising the right to protest, including the following:

If there is a threat to the state's security, a threat to India's integrity and sovereignty, or a violation of
public order,

When there is contempt of court, or when good relations with foreign states are jeopardised.

MOBILITY RIGHTS-

The Constitution guarantees the right to mobility in Article 19(1)(d)[8], which states:

Every person shall have the right to vote.

(d) to travel freely across India's territory;

The Supreme Court stated in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[9] that the right to freely travel
within India's territory implies the right to locomotion, which means the right to move whenever and
wherever one wishes.

However, in some instances, the Constitution's two most basic rights come into conflict. While a
peaceful demonstration in a public place is a constitutional right of the protesters, it may violate the
right to mobility of another who suffers inconvenience as a result of the blockade. One of the most
recent and seminal judgments was in the Shaheen Bagh Protests case.

THE SHAHEEN BAGH JUDGMENT: BALANCE BETWEEN DISSENT AND DEMOCRACY:

SHAHEEN BAGH PROTESTS

The contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 sparked widespread dissent and subsequent
protests across the region. Shaheen Bagh was a stronghold for anti-CAA demonstrations, attracting
massive crowds due to the protest site's basic amenities. This concentration of protesters resulted in the
closure of nearly a kilometre of a six-lane highway, causing significant inconvenience to residents of the
area as well as commuters using the protest road. [ 10 ]

Subsequently, a petition was filed in the Delhi High Court seeking to have the protest moved to another
'approved' protest venue, but the high court ultimately dismissed the plea. Later, a writ petition was
filed in the same court, ordering the authorities who were respondents in the instance to investigate the
petitioners' complaints and resolve them in accordance with the law and applicable government
policies, but did not issue a writ vesting the respondent authorities with complete authority over the
protest site. Despite the High Court's orders, demonstrations persisted, and the case finally reached the
Supreme Court. [ 11 ]

JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A PRECEDENT-

“Democracy and dissent are inextricably linked, but demonstrations expressing dissent must take place
exclusively in specified locations“- Excerpt from Supreme Court Judgment

Due to the persistence of protests and the uncertainty in the directions given by the Delhi High Court,
Mr. Amit Sahni filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. On 7th October 2020, the
Supreme Court issued its decision in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police and Others[12].
The court stated that the demonstrations against oppressive colonial rule cannot be accommodated in a
democratic society. The constitution, in addition to establishing rights, also establishes some
responsibilities for citizens;

“Dissent against colonial rule in the past cannot be equated with dissent in a self-governing democracy.”

The case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and Ors.[13] was heavily relied upon, with
the court ruling that no fundamental right imposed on people by the Constitution exists in isolation and
that a balance must be struck with all other contrasting rights. While there is a constitutional right to
protest against legislation, it was determined that public spaces cannot be used for an unacceptable
period of time or in an irresponsible manner;

“While we recognise the right to peaceful protest against legislation, we must make it very clear that
public ways and public spaces cannot be invaded in this manner and for an indefinite period of time.”

Finally, the court determined that blocking a public space for demonstrations is not permissible and that
it is the administration's duty to avoid such obstructions and encroachments.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: THE MAJOR CONTROVERSY OF DISSENT VS. EFFECTIVE
DEMOCRACY FUNCTIONING

The judgement was not limited to establishing a balance between the right to protest and the right to
mobility; it also addressed the broader problem of balancing dissenting voices and the successful
functioning of a democracy. Additionally, there has been criticism of the decision on a variety of topics.

Among the criticisms is Shaheen Bagh's geographic location in a Muslim-dominated culture. It is obvious
that for a minority, working in their backyard provides comfort in their battle against the establishment
and in getting their voices heard at the top. The court's responsibility was to determine the significance
of the protest site and to acknowledge that the protest was not motivated by government convenience.
Public spaces should serve as more than a meeting ground; they should be a place where citizens'
demands are heard and where they feel protected and secure.

International forums have recognised that demonstrations held in public spaces are 'legitimate.'
According to the European Court of Human Rights, there should be some 'tolerance' for the
inconvenience created by demonstrations in everyday life. [ 14 ] Controlling demonstrations, especially
when it is the only option, can jeopardise the right to freedom of speech.

The right to freedom of speech is at the heart of every democracy, and its security should be a priority
for the state, and the judiciary, as a component of the state, is also responsible for its protection.
Although the demonstrations would undoubtedly trigger some disruption, the right to free speech is
critical to a democracy and should not be limited. Restriction on it, as it seems in this case, should not be
enforced, as demonstrations should not be held exclusively in areas designated by those in control, and
restrictions on the use of public spaces for protests should be discouraged.