Yin & Yang
Right to Protest v/s Duty to Protect: Balancing Act
Recent events
The leak of NEET question paper for medical entrance exams that came to light in May 2026 triggered statewide protests by students and student networks organisations in June’26. These protests gained prominence after social activist Sonam Wangchuk joined them and began a hunger strike with a set of demands that included the resignation of the education minister. The protests reached a boiling point with a massive student assembly at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and march to Parliament. The ensuing clashes between protesters and law enforcement authorities resulted in grievous injuries to both students as well as policemen. Tear gas shells and wooden batons were used by police to disperse the protesters some of whom became unruly, violent and destructive. These demonstrations led directly to the resignation of the Union Education Minister.
Another fallout of the students protests at Jantar Mantar occurred at an institutional level. some students of the National Academy for Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR), Hyderabad opposed the invitation given to the Chief Justice of India for their convocation ceremony. They attributed this to certain remarks made by the CJI during a hearing on the student protests. The Bar Council of India (BCI) reacted by issuing a circular in August’26 to Bar Councils of all States to freeze enrolment of the entire batch of students from enrolment into their respective Bar councils. Following a backlash from several quarters, including the CJI himself, this circular was withdrawn.
The Legal Core
The events in the summer of 2026 put an uncomfortable question back into the national spotlight: How much protest is too much—and when does the state’s duty to protect turn into an excuse to silence? Does an individual’s right to dissent take precedence over a government’s responsibility to ensure sanctity of human life?
To understand this, one must understand the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
Article 19: guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble (and protest) peacefully without arms. However, Article 19(2) expressly provides that the state can impose restrictions on protests in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, decency, or morality. Protests must remain non-violent and cannot indefinitely block public pathways, a precedent heavily reinforced by the Supreme Court of India.
In essence, Article 19 guarantees freedom of expression in many forms including peaceful protest without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions (public order, morality, health, national sovereignty and foreign relations).
Among the conditions required to be met before a protest is undertaken are: (i) protest shall be peaceful and no arms carried by protesters (ii) public roads and essential services shall not be blocked or disrupted (iii) wherever required under administrative rules, permissions shall be formally obtained from the police for the protest (iv) directions issued by concerned authorities shall be complied with by the protesters.
Prior police permission is essential for conducting an organised protest in public places irrespective of the strength of the protesters. A formal letter with all relevant details at least 48 hours in advance and the police station’s stamp on the letter copy will become proof of application. The protest shall be conducted strictly as per the details given in the letter, especially the strength of protesters.
Hunger strike is a recognised form of peaceful protest and a fundamental right. But this recognition depends on the motive behind the protest: whether the protests are an expression of dissent against the executive or whether they are coercion of the executive by way of threat of fasting unto death. Coercion of the executive by threat of fasting unto death does not have the legal sanction of courts while applying this Article.
Article 21: guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Right to life includes right to live with dignity and life in healthy environment. Personal liberty includes all the freedoms guaranteed in Article 19 that include: to move freely, to choose one’s place of residence and to engage in any lawful profession. These two rights shall not be deprived to any person, except in accordance with procedure established by law. Supreme Court has interconnected Articles 14 (Equality before Law), 19 and 21 into one triangular statute to protect these basic rights of individual against arbitrary actions of the State.
The Balancing Act
In the recent judgment on the NEET suicides and the student protests, the Supreme Court took a balanced view on how much protest is too much. While letting genuine students off the hook by quashing all FIR’s, the Bench made an exception for Police to pursue specific FIR against 2,873 individuals spotted at Jantar Mantar only because it was established that they were not students and possessed serious criminal antecedents.
Similarly, in Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike / protest by fasting case, the Delhi High Court did not ban the protest but ordered daily medical monitoring to ensure there was no fatality due to health deterioration.
The institutional protest at NALSAR was in total contrast. There was no violence nor was there any transgression of law by the students. The Apex Court quashed the circulars holding up the enrolment of the graduating lawyers. Further it was vocal in establishing the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India (BCI). The Supreme Court ruled that the BCI’s disciplinary mandate under the Advocates Act, 1961 applies exclusively to registered advocates who have already been admitted to the bar and could not exercise regulatory control over students before they became advocates and came within the statutory framework governing the legal profession. On 3rd September 2026, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Councils have disciplinary jurisdiction only over individuals registered as advocates and clarified that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not grant the regulatory bodies any express or implied power to punish or discipline law students before their formal professional enrolment. The CJI himself admonished BCI’s action while upholding the students’ right to protest in the manner they did reiterates the validity and sanctity of Article 19.
Conclusion
The relationship between a citizen’s right to protest and the state’s duty to protect is a constitutional Yin and Yang—two opposing, powerful forces that are structurally independent, yet utterly dependent on one another to maintain democratic equilibrium. When the balance slightly tilts in favour of one over the other, the constitutional machinery breaks down into either anarchy or authoritarianism.