The Bombay High Court recently reaffirmed that peaceful protest is a constitutional right for every Indian. This is a vital democratic truth delivered at a time when basic rights are increasingly under strain. The court also underscored the self-evident principle that the police are servants of the people, not of top government authorities. It issued the ruling after hearing a case of petitioner Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI). Chaudhary had organised protests, allegedly without police permission, against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government’s decisions regarding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Gyanvapi mosque. In response, Mumbai Police filed FIRs and issued an externment order against him in December 2025. The court questioned these actions and ruled that slapping FIRs and debarring a citizen from entering a city merely for criticising the government is unjustified. Since there was no evidence of a threat to public safety or property, the order infringed upon his fundamental rights.

Justice Madhav Jamdar quashed the externment, holding that the order is a severe measure that cannot be arbitrarily invoked simply because a citizen holds public protests. Raising slogans like “government murdabad” cannot be legal grounds to file criminal cases or banish individuals from a city. The court affirmed that dissent and protests are legitimate responses of citizens to the government’s actions, protected by the right to free speech and expression under Article 19. Treating such protests as threats to public order without credible evidence erodes the very freedom that distinguishes a democracy from an authoritarian state. The judge’s suggestion that the petitioner should consider switching political affiliations to get the FIRs quashed through the ruling party’s “washing machine” was made in a lighter vein, but it shows how judicial minds are concerned over trends that pose a threat to democratic and constitutional ideals.

While the Bombay High Court’s ruling should resonate beyond the immediate context of the case, its democratic spirit is frequently violated in cases where victims find no judicial relief. Two days after the ruling, a Delhi court rejected the bail applications of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, both accused in the larger conspiracy case in connection with the 2020 Delhi riots. They have been incarcerated for over five years, and their bail pleas have been repeatedly dismissed by various courts, including the Supreme Court. Their prolonged imprisonment further reveals a contradiction in the legal landscape. The judicial protection of dissent, underlined in Justice Jamdar’s judgment, has failed to reach everyone. (Source: DH)