Introduction: When the State Uses Force Against Its Own Citizens
There are moments in constitutional democracies when a few carefully chosen words carry greater weight than a lengthy judgement. The recent observations of Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan concerning police personnel allegedly assaulting students and other protestors at Jantar Mantar constitute one such moment.
Speaking on September 4, 2026, at the launch of former security secretary Yashovardhan Azad’s book Policing the Republic in New Delhi, Justice Bhuyan said that it was “very, very distressing” to see young Indian Police Service officers personally assaulting protestors and demonstrators. He further described the apparent disappearance of the professional “detachment” expected of police officers as a matter of “grave concern”.
These were not observations made in an adjudicated case before the Supreme Court. They were public remarks made at a book-launch event. Nevertheless, they deserve serious constitutional attention because they touch the very heart of the relationship between the citizen and the State: how much force may the State legitimately employ when citizens exercise their democratic freedoms?
The question becomes particularly important when the persons on the receiving end of state force are students and young citizens exercising their constitutional rights.
Justice Bhuyan’s remarks also sit within a much larger body of constitutional law developed by the Supreme Court over several decades. From D.K. Basu to Prakash Singh, and from cases concerning peaceful assembly to judgements concerning police encounters, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made one proposition clear: police power is not above constitutional power.
Also Read: Can America Reform the Supreme Court? Latest 5–4 Ruling Reignites Term Limits Debate
What Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Said
Justice Bhuyan expressed dismay over reports of police personnel assaulting students and demonstrators during the recent protest activity at Jantar Mantar.
He observed that seeing young IPS officers personally assaulting protestors was “very, very distressing” and said that the professional detachment expected of police officers appeared to be disappearing. He characterised the development as a matter of grave concern.
The significance of the remarks lies not merely in the criticism of one alleged incident. Justice Bhuyan placed the issue within the broader constitutional role of the police.
He explained that, for an ordinary citizen, a policeman on the street represents the power and authority of the State. Consequently, public confidence in policing is essential. According to Justice Bhuyan, the police can maintain effective law and order without excessive use of force or infringement of human rights.
He emphasised that police credibility depends upon adherence to the Constitution, professional conduct, impartiality, integrity and commitment to the rule of law.
This is the constitutional core of the issue.
The Issue Is Not Police Versus Protestors
A mature constitutional discussion must avoid presenting the matter as a simplistic contest between the police and protestors.
Police officers have a difficult responsibility. They must maintain public order, protect life and property, regulate traffic, prevent violence and respond to genuine threats. A constitutional right to protest does not create a constitutional right to assault another person, destroy property or obstruct public life without lawful justification.
Equally, however, the existence of police powers does not mean that every police response becomes lawful merely because the objective is described as “maintenance of law and order”.
The constitutional question is one of necessity, legality, proportionality and accountability.
The State may regulate an assembly. It may impose reasonable restrictions in accordance with law. It may intervene where violence or a genuine threat to public order arises.
But the State cannot transform a legitimate restriction into an unrestricted licence for physical force.
The Constitutional Right to Protest
The freedom to protest in India does not arise from one constitutional provision alone. It flows principally from the freedoms guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
- Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression.
- Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
- Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form associations and unions.
These rights are not absolute. Articles 19(2) and 19(3) permit constitutionally permissible and reasonable restrictions on speech and peaceful assembly, including restrictions connected with public order and other constitutionally specified grounds.
Therefore, the correct legal position is neither “every protest is immune from police intervention” nor “the police can use whatever force they consider necessary”.
The constitutional position lies between those extremes.
A peaceful protest is constitutionally protected; reasonable regulation is constitutionally permissible; arbitrary or excessive state force is not.
Also Read: World Inequality Report 2026: India’s Wealth Gap, Top 1%, and Economic Inequality
Protest, Public Order and Reasonable Restrictions
Public demonstrations necessarily create some degree of inconvenience. Roads may become crowded. Traffic may be affected. Police deployment may be required.
That inconvenience, by itself, cannot convert a constitutional freedom into an unlawful activity.
At the same time, the right to protest cannot be used as a justification for violence or unlawful conduct.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly approached restrictions on fundamental rights through the requirement of reasonableness. Restrictions must bear a rational and proximate connection with the legitimate objective sought to be achieved and cannot become arbitrary or excessive. The Court has also examined restrictions affecting demonstrations and assemblies in this constitutional framework.
Key Questions When Force Is Used Against Protestors
Consequently, when force is used against protestors, the relevant questions should include:
- Was there a lawful basis for the police intervention?
- Was the assembly peaceful at the relevant time?
- Was there an actual threat to public order?
- Was the force reasonably necessary?
- Was the degree of force proportionate to the threat?
- Were less intrusive methods available?
- Was medical assistance provided to injured persons?
- Was the conduct of individual officers independently examined?
- Was there an effective mechanism for complaints and accountability?
| Constitutional Issue | Key Question |
|---|---|
| Lawfulness | Was there a lawful basis for police intervention? |
| Public Order | Was there an actual threat to public order? |
| Necessity | Was the use of force reasonably necessary? |
| Proportionality | Was the degree of force proportionate to the threat? |
| Less Intrusive Measures | Were less intrusive methods available? |
| Medical Assistance | Was medical assistance provided to injured persons? |
| Accountability | Was the conduct of individual officers independently examined? |
| Complaints | Was there an effective mechanism for complaints and accountability? |
Article 21: Arrest Does Not Erase Fundamental Rights
Perhaps the most important constitutional principle underlying Justice Bhuyan’s remarks concerns Article 21.
Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 expansively. Personal liberty is not a favour granted by the State. It is a constitutional guarantee.
This principle becomes particularly important after arrest or detention.
Justice Bhuyan referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, reported as (1997) 1 SCC 416; AIR 1997 SC 610, concerning custodial violence and safeguards relating to arrest and detention.
The underlying constitutional proposition is straightforward: arrest does not place a citizen outside the protection of the Constitution.
A person may lose physical liberty pursuant to lawful arrest, but he does not lose human dignity or the protection of fundamental rights.
D.K. Basu: The Police Station Is Also Within the Constitution
The D.K. Basu judgement remains one of the foundational decisions dealing with custodial safeguards in India.
The case arose against the background of custodial deaths and torture. The Supreme Court recognised the serious constitutional consequences of abuse of police power and laid down safeguards concerning arrest and detention.
Justice Bhuyan specifically invoked the principle that torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be justified merely because a person is under investigation or interrogation.
The importance of D.K. Basu goes far beyond police stations.
Its deeper constitutional message is that state power must remain accountable at precisely the point where an individual citizen is most vulnerable.
Whether the citizen is a suspect inside a police station or a demonstrator in a public place, the exercise of state power remains subject to law.
Police Force Must Be Necessary and Proportionate
The expression “law and order” cannot become a constitutional magic phrase.
Whenever force is used, there must be a legitimate purpose behind the intervention. But legitimate purpose alone is insufficient. The means adopted must also bear a reasonable relationship to that purpose.
For example, a violent attack by protestors may require immediate police intervention. But a peaceful protestor who poses no immediate threat cannot automatically be treated as though he presents the same level of danger.
Crowd Control Versus Punishment
The distinction between crowd control and punishment is therefore crucial.
Police intervention is intended to restore lawful order. It cannot become an opportunity to punish people for their political opinions, criticism of government policy or participation in lawful dissent.
A Policeman Represents the Authority of the State
One of Justice Bhuyan’s most significant observations was his emphasis on the ordinary citizen’s perception of the police.
For a common citizen, the policeman standing on the road is not merely an individual employee. He represents the authority of the State.
That observation deserves careful consideration.
If citizens begin to believe that approaching the police exposes them to arbitrary violence, the legitimacy of the entire criminal justice system suffers.
Police credibility is therefore not a public-relations issue. It is a constitutional necessity.
A police force that commands fear but loses public confidence may possess coercive power, but it gradually loses institutional legitimacy.
Police Accountability Is a Constitutional Necessity
Justice Bhuyan also spoke about police reform and the dangers of political interference in policing. His remarks are consistent with the Supreme Court’s longstanding concern regarding the institutional independence and accountability of the police.
In Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 1, decided on September 22, 2006, the Supreme Court addressed the need for structural police reform.
The Court noted the long-standing concerns about political and administrative interference and held that there could be no indefinite waiting for governments to introduce police reforms. It issued directions intended to promote professional independence, accountability and better functioning of the police force.
Institutional Mechanisms Contemplated in Prakash Singh
The judgement contemplated institutional mechanisms, including:
- State Security Commissions;
- a transparent process for selection of police chiefs;
- minimum tenure protections;
- separation of investigation from law-and-order functions;
- Police Establishment Boards; and
- Police Complaints Authorities.
The significance of Prakash Singh is that police reform is not simply an administrative convenience. It is intimately connected with the rule of law.
Also Read: Santosh Pandit Arrest: How I Would Defend Him Under BNS, BNSS & IT Act.
Why Political Interference Is Constitutionally Dangerous
A police officer must enforce the law, not the preferences of whichever political authority happens to be exercising executive power at a particular moment.
This does not mean that police authorities are beyond governmental supervision. Democratic governments necessarily have responsibility for policing policy and public administration.
The constitutional problem arises when legitimate supervision turns into unlawful interference, partisan policing or pressure to act against particular individuals or groups.
Prakash Singh recognised the danger of excessive political interference and emphasised the need for professional independence within the policing system.
The principle is particularly relevant to protest policing.
If the police begin to regard peaceful political dissent as inherently hostile to the government of the day, the distinction between law enforcement and political enforcement becomes dangerously blurred.
The Supreme Court’s Warning Against the “Encounter Philosophy”
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence concerning extra-judicial killings and so-called fake encounters.
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra, decided on September 23, 2014, the Supreme Court examined procedures for investigating police encounters and emphasised the importance of independent investigation where police killings are questioned. The judgement referred to earlier decisions concerning alleged fake encounters and stressed that such incidents affect the credibility of the rule of law and the criminal justice system.
The Court also referred to Satyavir Singh Rathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police v. State, (2011) 6 SCC 1, and Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta, (2011) 6 SCC 189, in discussing the proposition that police officers cannot commit murder in the name of an “encounter”.
The Broader Lesson
The broader lesson is unmistakable:
The uniform does not confer immunity from criminal law or constitutional accountability.
Custodial Torture and Death: The Ultimate Failure of State Power
Justice Bhuyan also expressed concern over custodial torture and deaths, describing custodial death as among the worst crimes in a civilised society governed by the rule of law.
This observation deserves particular emphasis.
The State has overwhelming coercive advantages over an individual in custody. The citizen cannot simply walk away. The police control the environment, the documents, the access to information and, in many situations, the immediate circumstances in which the person is detained.
That imbalance makes accountability essential.
Custodial violence is therefore not merely an ordinary allegation of assault. It raises a profound constitutional question about whether state power is being exercised within the boundaries of law.
Why the Student Dimension Is Particularly Important
Justice Bhuyan’s latest remarks also assume greater significance when read alongside his recent observations concerning students and dissent.
At the convocation of National Law University, Delhi, he reportedly said that students should not be threatened with punitive action merely because they express a different point of view or ask questions, describing such conduct as unconstitutional and a misuse of power.
There is a common constitutional thread between those observations and his latest comments on police conduct.
It is the principle that democracy does not demand intellectual obedience.
Universities, public institutions and democratic spaces must permit disagreement, debate and questioning, subject of course to lawful limits.
A student who asks an inconvenient question is not necessarily a threat to public order.
A citizen who criticises a government policy is not necessarily an enemy of the State.
A protestor exercising a constitutional freedom is not automatically a criminal.
These distinctions are essential to a constitutional democracy.
Dissent Is Not Disloyalty
One of the most dangerous developments in any democracy is the gradual equation of dissent with disloyalty.
A constitutional democracy is designed precisely to accommodate disagreement.
Governments will change. Policies will change. Majorities will change. Public opinion will change.
Fundamental rights exist partly to protect the individual and the minority viewpoint from the consequences of transient majoritarian power.
Therefore, the test of a democracy is not whether citizens agree with the government.
The real test is whether citizens remain free to disagree within the boundaries of law.
When Can Police Lawfully Use Force Against Protestors?
There is no universal answer because the legality of force depends upon the factual circumstances of each incident.
Nevertheless, several principles provide a useful constitutional framework.
| Situation | Constitutional Approach |
|---|---|
| Peaceful assembly | Protected subject to reasonable legal regulation |
| Assembly causing lawful public-order concerns | Regulation or dispersal may be permissible if legally authorised and proportionate. |
| Violent protest | Police may intervene to prevent violence and protect persons and property. |
| Immediate threat to life | Stronger intervention may be justified depending on the circumstances. |
| Unnecessary assault after threat has ended | May raise serious questions of excessive or unlawful force |
| Punishment for political opinion | Constitutionally impermissible |
| Custodial torture | Incompatible with constitutional protections and subject to legal accountability |
The crucial word throughout is proportionality.
What a Professional Police Force Should Do
A professionally trained police force should ideally follow a graduated approach to crowd management.
- Communicate clearly with organisers and participants.
- Identify the precise public-order concern.
- Give lawful and comprehensible directions where necessary.
- Provide a reasonable opportunity for compliance wherever circumstances permit.
- Use the least intrusive effective intervention.
- Escalate only where genuinely necessary.
- Provide immediate medical assistance to injured persons.
- Document significant uses of force.
- Preserve relevant video and other evidence.
- Ensure complaints against officers are independently examined.
This approach does not weaken the police.
On the contrary, it strengthens police legitimacy.
CCTV, Video Evidence and Transparency
Modern protest policing takes place in an environment in which virtually every significant incident may be recorded by mobile phones, CCTV systems, media organisations and police cameras.
This can be a powerful accountability mechanism.
Where allegations of assault arise, preservation of relevant video footage can help establish what happened before, during and after the use of force.
Equally, police personnel should not be condemned merely because a short video clip appears alarming when the complete factual context has not been established.
The correct approach is therefore neither automatic condemnation nor automatic defence of the police.
The correct approach is evidence-based accountability.
When Government Functionaries Become Lawbreakers
Justice Bhuyan made another important constitutional observation: if government functionaries themselves become lawbreakers, it can breed contempt for law and encourage lawlessness.
This proposition goes to the heart of the rule of law.
The state asks citizens to obey the law. It prosecutes those who violate it. It imposes penalties upon offenders.
But that authority can remain legitimate only if state institutions themselves remain subject to law.
There cannot be one standard of legality for the citizen and another for the state.
The police cannot enforce the rule of law by becoming indifferent to the rule of law themselves.
The Wider Warning: Manipur and the Limits of Force
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the continuing violence in Manipur while speaking about policing and the role of security forces. Despite the presence of multiple security agencies, he observed that peace remained elusive and described the situation as carrying a lesson for India.
The point is important from a policing perspective.
Security force deployment can suppress immediate manifestations of disorder. But durable peace requires legitimacy, public confidence, institutional accountability and political resolution.
Force can sometimes be necessary to protect citizens.
Force alone, however, cannot manufacture democratic legitimacy.
The Constitutional Balance: Rights and Responsibilities
It is equally important to acknowledge that fundamental rights come with constitutional responsibilities and lawful limitations.
Protestors must remain peaceful and comply with valid legal restrictions. Police officers must maintain public order and protect citizens.
But neither side operates outside the Constitution.
The protestor cannot claim immunity from ordinary law merely because he is protesting.
The police officer cannot claim immunity from constitutional and criminal law merely because he is wearing a uniform.
This mutual accountability is what separates a constitutional democracy from a system based merely upon coercive power.
Why Justice Bhuyan’s Remarks Matter
Some may ask why public remarks by a sitting Supreme Court Judge at a book launch should receive such attention when no formal judgement was delivered.
The answer is that senior judges occasionally use public constitutional forums to articulate concerns about institutions and democratic values. Such remarks do not constitute binding judicial precedent and should not be treated as though they were holdings in a decided case.
Nevertheless, they can contribute meaningfully to public constitutional discourse.
In the present case, the remarks bring together several established themes of Indian constitutional jurisprudence:
- freedom of speech and expression;
- peaceful assembly;
- personal liberty;
- human dignity;
- protection against custodial violence;
- police accountability;
- professional independence of the police;
- judicial scrutiny of excessive state power; and
- the rule of law.
My Legal Analysis: The Uniform Is Powerful, But The Constitution Is Supreme
Having practised law for more than two decades, I believe the most important lesson from this controversy is not that police officers should hesitate to maintain order.
They should not.
India needs a strong, competent and fearless police force.
But a strong police force is not the same thing as an unchecked police force.
The strongest police institution is one whose officers know precisely where their powers begin and where they end.
The citizen must be able to look at a police officer and see the protection of the State rather than fear the arbitrary power of the State.
That distinction is fundamental.
If an officer uses force because circumstances genuinely require it, the officer should have the confidence that the law will protect lawful action.
If an officer uses unnecessary violence, the same officer must know that the uniform will not protect unlawful conduct.
That is what professional policing means.
Three Constitutional Questions India Must Keep Asking
1. Can The State Restrict A Protest?
Yes. Fundamental freedoms are subject to constitutionally permitted reasonable restrictions and lawful regulation.
2. Can the Police Use Force?
Yes, where legally authorised and genuinely necessary. But the force must be proportionate to the circumstances and cannot become arbitrary punishment.
3. Can A Police Officer Be Held Accountable?
Absolutely. The police are institutions of the State, but police officers remain subject to the Constitution, criminal law, disciplinary law and judicial oversight.
Important Supreme Court Authorities
| Case | Reported Citation | Legal Significance |
|---|---|---|
| D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal | (1997) 1 SCC 416; AIR 1997 SC 610 | Safeguards against custodial abuse and protection of fundamental rights during arrest and detention |
| Prakash Singh v. Union of India | (2006) 8 SCC 1 | Landmark directions concerning police reforms, accountability and professional independence |
| Satyavir Singh Rathi v. State | (2011) 6 SCC 1 | Police accountability in alleged encounter killings |
| Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta | (2011) 6 SCC 189 | Serious judicial scrutiny of fake encounters and unlawful police killings |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra | Decided September 23, 2014 | Independent investigation and procedural safeguards concerning police encounters |
The jurisprudence demonstrates a consistent constitutional theme: police powers exist to enforce law, not to replace law.
Conclusion: Democracy Is Tested When Citizens Disagree
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s description of police assaulting protestors as “very, very distressing” should not be reduced to a political headline.
It raises a much larger constitutional issue.
India is a constitutional democracy in which citizens possess the right to speak, question, disagree, assemble peacefully and express opposition to government policies, subject to lawful restrictions.
The police, meanwhile, are entrusted with one of the most coercive powers available to the state.
That power is necessary. But precisely because it is powerful, it must remain disciplined by law.
The constitutional promise is not that the State will never use force. The promise is that state force will not become lawless force.
The Supreme Court’s decisions in D.K. Basu, Prakash Singh and the police-encounter cases form an important legal architecture around that principle. Justice Bhuyan’s latest observations bring the same constitutional concern into the contemporary debate over student protests and policing.
- A protestor must respect the law.
- A police officer must enforce the law.
- But the Constitution stands above both.
That is the essence of the rule of law.
And perhaps the most important question raised by Justice Bhuyan’s remarks is therefore a simple one:
When the State asks citizens to respect the law, can the State itself ever be permitted to forget that it is equally bound by the law?
The answer under the Constitution of India must always be: No.
Citation and Reporting Note
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s September 4, 2026, comments were made at the launch of Policing the Republic and are reported by multiple news organisations. They should be described as public observations or remarks, rather than as a new Supreme Court judgement or binding ratio decidendi. The legal propositions discussed above are supported by the established Supreme Court authorities cited in the article.
Need Legal Advice On Police Action, Protest Rights Or Fundamental Rights?
If you or a family member has faced police assault, unlawful detention, excessive use of force, custodial abuse, or violation of fundamental rights, timely legal advice can be crucial.
For professional guidance on police accountability, constitutional rights, unlawful police action, Article 19 freedoms, Article 21 protections, protest-related legal issues and remedies before the appropriate court or authority, consult:
Adv. Tarun Choudhury
Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience
đź“ž Call: 9650499965
đź’¬ WhatsApp: 8851978611
Protect Your Constitutional Rights. Seek Experienced Legal Guidance.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. Can Police Legally Assault Protestors In India?
No. Police may use reasonable and necessary force to maintain public order where legally justified, but arbitrary, excessive or punitive force against protestors can violate constitutional rights, including protections under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Whether police action is lawful depends on the facts, the threat involved, and whether the force used was necessary and proportionate.
2. Is The Right To Protest A Fundamental Right In India?
Yes. The right to protest peacefully is protected primarily through Article 19(1)(a), which protects freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(b), which protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. However, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions permitted by the Constitution, particularly in the interests of public order.
3. What Can A Person Do If Police Use Excessive Force During A Protest?
A person who suffers excessive police force, unlawful detention or police assault during a protest may explore appropriate legal remedies depending on the circumstances. These may include approaching senior police authorities, relevant oversight or complaints mechanisms, and the appropriate court for constitutional or other legal remedies. Medical records, photographs, videos, witness details and other evidence can be important in establishing what occurred.
4. How Does The D.K. Basu Judgement Protect People From Police Abuse?
In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416; AIR 1997 SC 610, the Supreme Court laid down important safeguards concerning arrest and detention in response to concerns about custodial violence. The judgement reinforced the principle that arrest does not remove a person’s fundamental rights and that police authorities remain constitutionally accountable for the treatment of persons in their custody.
5. Can Police Officers Be Held Legally Accountable For Assaulting Protestors?
Yes. Police officers are not above the law. Depending on the facts, unlawful or excessive police conduct may attract criminal, disciplinary, constitutional or other legal consequences. The Supreme Court’s police-reform and police-accountability jurisprudence, including Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1, emphasises the importance of professional policing, accountability and mechanisms for addressing complaints against police personnel.
Key Takeaways: Police Assaulting Protestors and Constitutional Rights
- Police assaulting protestors is a serious constitutional concern when force is arbitrary, excessive, unnecessary or disproportionate to the situation.
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan called police assault on protestors “very, very distressing”, highlighting concerns about police professionalism, accountability and respect for human rights.
- The right to peaceful protest is constitutionally protected in India through Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (peaceful assembly without arms), subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Police can regulate or disperse protests in lawful circumstances, particularly where public order, safety or other legitimate interests are genuinely threatened. However, police powers do not permit indiscriminate violence.
- Police force must be necessary and proportionate. Law-and-order responsibilities cannot be used as a justification for arbitrary assault or punishment of peaceful demonstrators.
- Article 21 protects personal liberty and human dignity. Arrest or detention does not place a person outside the protection of the Constitution.
- The D.K. Basu judgement (1997) 1 SCC 416 established important safeguards against custodial violence, reinforcing accountability for police conduct during arrest and detention.
- Police officers are subject to the rule of law. The uniform does not provide immunity from constitutional obligations, criminal law or disciplinary accountability.
- Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1, remains a landmark police-reform judgement, addressing police accountability, professional independence and institutional reforms.
- Dissent is an essential feature of democracy. Criticism of government policy, peaceful protest and asking difficult questions should not automatically be treated as anti-national or unlawful conduct.
- Students and young protestors enjoy constitutional protections, although those protections remain subject to valid laws and reasonable restrictions.
- Video recordings, CCTV footage, photographs, medical records and witness accounts can be important evidence when allegations of police assault or excessive force arise.
- The constitutional balance is clear: protestors must obey lawful restrictions and remain peaceful, while police must maintain public order without exceeding their lawful powers.
Summary
Police assaulting protestors in India raises important questions concerning Article 19, Article 21, the right to peaceful protest, police accountability and proportionality of force. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s recent remarks highlight the constitutional requirement that police maintain law and order while respecting human rights, dignity and democratic dissent. Supreme Court judgements, including D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Prakash Singh v. Union of India, provide important legal principles concerning police accountability, custodial safeguards and police reform.
Important Links
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965
