There was a remarkable exchange in the Delhi High Court this week. The government was asked why it was not considering shutting down the Jantar Mantar area as a venue for protests. “Why don’t you shut it down? According to me, these things should not happen in the city, but it’s the government’s call. Why should the city be put (sic) to ransom unnecessarily?” the court asked.

It was hearing a plea filed by the All India Dalit Christian Rights Protection Committee, seeking directions to the Delhi Police to decide on the committee’s plea for permission to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar. The group’s advocate then asked whether it was the Centre’s stand that there could be no protests in Delhi. To this, the judge replied, “That’s for the police to decide.” The advocate said: “Fair enough, let them say so that there will be no democratic, peaceful protests in Delhi. We will accept it.”

The bench’s position was that the “city should not be put to ransom” by protesters. The government’s response was not known, but all governments in India think — and have thought — that protest is a nuisance that gets in the way of ‘good governance’.

It is important to examine the issue at some depth, and therefore this column today. Article 19 of the Constitution says: ‘All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression; (b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form........

© National Herald