Freedom of assembly under Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution grants citizens the right to gather peacefully and without arms. It enables individuals to express opinions, protest, and participate in public discourse, while being subject to reasonable restrictions for public order, sovereignty, and morality. 

The Indian Constitution is often hailed as a living document, dynamic, evolving, and responsive to the needs of its people. It is not merely a set of legal provisions but a profound commitment to uphold the dignity, equality, and freedom of every citizen. Among its numerous protections, the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III serve as powerful safeguards against arbitrary power. They are designed not only to protect individuals from the excesses of the State but also to empower citizens to participate meaningfully in the democratic process. Without these rights, the promise of democracy would be incomplete and ineffective.

One of the most significant among these freedoms is the freedom of assembly, guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. This right allows every citizen to assemble peaceably and without arms, providing an avenue for collective action, whether political, social, cultural, or religious. The framers of the Constitution recognized that a healthy democracy requires more than just the conduct of elections. They understood that continuous public engagement and active participation are essential to ensure that governance remains truly representative and responsive.

Freedom of assembly is often described as the heartbeat of democracy. It is the mechanism through which citizens express their collective aspirations, dissent against injustice, advocate for reforms, and assert their rights. Public gatherings, protests, rallies, and demonstrations have historically played a crucial role in shaping India’s political and social development. They offer a platform for marginalized communities to be heard and create spaces for dialogue and negotiation among diverse groups.

Without the freedom to assemble, democracy would risk becoming a hollow structure, reduced to periodic voting without real engagement between the State and its citizens. Assemblies allow people to hold the government accountable, influence public policy, and voice their solidarity on issues of national and local importance. They reinforce the principle that ultimate sovereignty rests with the people.

At the same time, this right is subject to certain conditions. The Constitution mandates that assemblies must be peaceful and without arms. It also permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, and public order. This ensures that while citizens have the freedom to express themselves, it does not come at the cost of societal stability or the rights of others.

Text of Article 19(1)(b)

Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution states:

“All citizens shall have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.”

At first glance, the provision is straightforward. However, embedded within these few words are multiple layers of constitutional significance:

• Who enjoys the right?: Only citizens of India.
• Nature of the assembly?: It must be peaceful.
• Limitation?: The assembly must be without arms.

Thus, the right is not absolute; it is subject to inherent qualifications even before considering further restrictions imposed by the State.

Historical Context of Freedom of Assembly

The origins of the right to freedom of assembly in India are deeply intertwined with the nation’s long and arduous struggle for independence. Public meetings, mass protests, rallies, marches, and satyagrahas became the defining features of India’s resistance against British colonial domination.

Leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Subhas Chandra Bose relied heavily on the mobilization of people to challenge the legitimacy and authority of foreign rule. These collective actions were not only symbolic expressions of dissent but also powerful tools of political pressure that ultimately shook the foundations of colonial governance.

During British rule, the colonial authorities were acutely aware of the potential power of mass gatherings. They viewed any form of public assembly with deep suspicion, fearing that it could quickly escalate into widespread rebellion. As a result, various oppressive laws were enacted with the specific aim of curbing the right to assemble and stifling any collective political activity.

Among these, the Rowlatt Act of 1919 stands out prominently. Ostensibly enacted to control revolutionary activities, the Rowlatt Act authorized the government to imprison individuals without trial and to suppress public gatherings without requiring substantive evidence of threat. It represented a blatant denial of basic civil liberties and provoked nationwide anger.

Perhaps the most brutal manifestation of colonial intolerance toward peaceful assembly was the tragic incident at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar on 13 April 1919. On that day, a large number of unarmed men, women, and children had gathered in the walled garden to protest peacefully against the Rowlatt Act and to celebrate the festival of Baisakhi.

In response, General Dyer ordered his troops to fire upon the crowd without warning and without any route for escape. The massacre left hundreds dead and many more wounded, sending shockwaves throughout India and the world. The Jallianwala Bagh tragedy exposed the stark reality that under colonial rule, the fundamental right to assemble peacefully could be violently suppressed with complete impunity.

This horrific event galvanized Indian society and intensified the demand for civil rights. The massacre fundamentally altered the course of the independence movement, leading to a mass awakening and the launch of large-scale non-cooperation movements under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.

Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagraha, or non-violent resistance, placed tremendous importance on the right to assemble, protest, and engage in peaceful civil disobedience. Movements such as the Non-Cooperation Movement, the Salt March, and the Quit India Movement heavily relied on gatherings of thousands of ordinary citizens who came together to assert their collective will against British authority.

Throughout the freedom struggle, the colonial government continued to use laws like the Sedition Act of 1870 and Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code to prohibit assemblies, detain leaders, and suppress dissent. Despite these challenges, Indians persisted in exercising their right to assemble, believing it to be an intrinsic part of their fight for self-determination.

By the time India neared independence, it had become abundantly clear that freedom of assembly was not merely a tactical necessity for the freedom movement but a fundamental human right that needed constitutional recognition in a free and democratic India.

The profound historical experiences of colonial suppression made the inclusion of the freedom of assembly in the Indian Constitution both inevitable and essential. The leaders of independent India, many of whom had personally faced arrests, lathi charges, and incarceration for participating in public demonstrations, deeply understood the significance of this right. They recognized that a genuine democracy must guarantee its citizens the ability to come together, share their views, express dissent, and advocate for change without fear of repression.

This understanding was reflected vividly in the Constituent Assembly Debates. Eminent leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, and others discussed the importance of ensuring fundamental rights that were not to be treated as mere privileges but as enforceable rights against the State itself. Dr. Ambedkar, often called the chief architect of the Constitution, emphasized that democracy is not merely about providing the right to vote once every few years. It is about creating an environment where citizens have the constant opportunity to participate, deliberate, and protest against policies that they disagree with.

Jawaharlal Nehru also stressed the necessity of freedom of assembly, arguing that it was vital for the healthy functioning of a democracy. In his speeches, Nehru often pointed out that political criticism and public demonstration were signs of a vibrant, living democracy rather than of instability. To him, suppressing peaceful assemblies would be akin to suppressing the very spirit of freedom and self-expression that the Indian national movement had so arduously fought for.

Therefore, when the Constitution of India was finally drafted and adopted on 26 January 1950, it was not surprising that the right to freedom of assembly was included prominently under Article 19(1)(b). The inclusion of this right reflected both the bitter experiences under colonial rule and the aspirational vision of a free India where citizens would never again have to face bullets and batons for peacefully asserting their collective will.

It is important to note that while the framers acknowledged the significance of this right, they also recognized the need for a balance. The history of mass movements had shown that while assemblies could serve as engines of positive change, they could also, under certain circumstances, lead to violence or disruption of public order. Therefore, the Constitution also made provisions for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) to safeguard the sovereignty, integrity, and public order of the nation.

Scope and Dimensions of Freedom of Assembly

The freedom of assembly under Article 19(1)(b) is not merely about physically coming together; it encompasses a broader, richer range of ideas and activities essential for the functioning of a democracy. It involves peaceful gatherings, expression of dissent, cultural celebrations, and public discussions, all forming the lifeblood of democratic participation.

The scope and dimensions of this right can be understood through several key facets:

Right to Assemble Peacefully

Peacefulness is the foundational requirement of a lawful assembly under the Indian Constitution.

The essence of democracy lies in dialogue, discussion, and deliberation. Citizens have the right to gather for political purposes (such as election rallies, protests, public meetings), social causes (such as awareness marches, charity events), religious observances (such as processions during festivals like Eid, Christmas, or Ganesh Chaturthi), and cultural expressions (such as art fairs, music festivals).

However, the Constitution expressly prohibits violence during assemblies. If an assembly:

• Turns violent,
• Incites hatred,
• Disturbs public order,
• Threatens communal harmony,

Then it loses its constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(b) and may be dispersed by the authorities under applicable laws (like Section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).

In Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that peaceful demonstrations fall within the ambit of the right to assemble, and that blanket prohibitions even on peaceful gatherings were unconstitutional.

Thus, peace is not just a condition but a constitutional obligation attached to the exercise of this right.

Assembly Without Arms

The phrase “without arms” explicitly restricts assemblies from being armed or carrying anything that could be used for violence.

The term “arms” is interpreted broadly and includes:

• Firearms (guns, pistols, rifles),
• Explosives (bombs, grenades),
• Sharp-edged weapons (swords, knives capable of causing bodily harm),
• Improvised weapons (stones, rods, or anything adapted to inflict injury).

The Arms Act, 1959, provides a comprehensive definition of arms, and its meaning is generally referred to when interpreting this constitutional limitation.

The rationale behind this requirement is simple: Freedom without fear. Citizens must feel safe to participate in assemblies, and an armed gathering would inherently threaten public peace, even if no violence actually occurs.

Important Point: Even symbolic or demonstrative displays of weapons in an assembly, for instance, parading with swords during a political rally, can be considered a violation unless specifically permitted under cultural or traditional contexts (and even then, must not threaten public order).

Thus, the “without arms” condition preserves the civil and non-violent character of democratic engagement.

Modes of Assembly

The Constitution’s framers envisioned “assembly” in the broadest democratic sense. It includes all peaceful and organized forms of collective expression.

Common Forms of Assembly

• Public Meetings: Organized gatherings where individuals come together to discuss political, social, or other matters.
• Protest Marches: Marches organized to draw attention to particular demands, grievances, or causes (e.g., farmers’ marches, women’s rights marches).
• Processions: Religious or cultural events involving collective movement (e.g., Muharram processions, Rath Yatras).
• Sit-ins (Dharna): Non-violent protests where individuals occupy a space as a form of demonstration (e.g., Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption dharna at Jantar Mantar).
• Flash Mobs: Spontaneous but peaceful performances aimed at highlighting an issue or entertaining the public (subject to law and public order).
• Candlelight Vigils: Symbolic gatherings, often conducted after tragedies, as a show of solidarity and remembrance.
• Peaceful Rallies: Organized gatherings in support of or against a cause, political candidate, or legislation.

Modern Extensions

While the Constitution was drafted in 1950, technological evolution has expanded the modes of assembly:

• Virtual Protests: Online gatherings through webinars or coordinated online campaigns (e.g., Twitter storms, digital petitions).
• Online Meetings: Virtual conventions and public discussions over Zoom, Google Meet, or other platforms.
• Digital Campaigns: Hashtag movements and social media-based collective actions (e.g., #MeToo, #BlackLivesMatter).

Rights Within the Assembly

An assembly is not an isolated right; it is intrinsically linked to several other fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Article 19:

#1 Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a))

The right to express opinions, dissent, and grievances often necessitates coming together in public. Speech in assemblies through slogans, speeches, banners, and placards is a vivid and visible form of exercising free speech.

Thus, an assembly without the ability to speak would be hollow, and vice versa.

• Example: During political rallies, leaders address the crowd, exercising both the right to assemble and the right to free speech.

#2 Freedom to Form Associations or Unions (Article 19(1)(c))

Many assemblies are organized by associations, whether political parties, student unions, trade unions, religious groups, or social organizations.

Freedom of association enables groups to come together, coordinate, and organize assemblies for collective action.

• Example: Trade unions organizing labor protests or student bodies holding campus protests.

#3 Freedom of Movement (Article 19(1)(d))

Assemblies often involve moving through public spaces, such as marches and processions. Freedom of movement within Indian territory ensures that citizens can gather at a place of their choosing (subject to reasonable regulations).

• Example: A march from India Gate to Parliament Street to demand legislative reforms.

Interlinkage of Rights

Thus, the freedom of assembly cannot be meaningfully exercised without simultaneously invoking:

• The freedom of expression to articulate demands,
• The freedom of association to organize participants,
• The freedom of movement to access public spaces.

Together, they form the architecture of participatory democracy, ensuring that governance remains by the people, for the people, and of the people.

Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(3)

While the Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b), it also recognizes that this freedom cannot be absolute. Individual rights must be balanced against the broader needs of society, such as security, public order, and national integrity. To ensure this balance, Article 19(3) authorizes the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to assemble.

The full text of Article 19(3) states:

“Nothing in sub-clause (b) shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevents the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.”

Thus, the Constitution itself acknowledges that freedom, while essential, must operate within the framework of security, peace, and public welfare.

Grounds for Restrictions under Article 19(3)

1. Sovereignty and Integrity of India

The sovereignty of India implies its supreme authority to govern itself without external interference. Integrity refers to the territorial wholeness and unity of the nation.

• The State can impose restrictions on assemblies if they threaten to undermine India’s sovereignty or territorial integrity.
• Activities like advocating secession, supporting insurgency movements, promoting terrorism, or encouraging foreign intervention are examples where assemblies can be legally curtailed.
• Example: Banning a rally organized to advocate for a breakaway territory (like Khalistan or a separate Kashmir) would be a constitutionally valid restriction.

This provision was explicitly added by the Sixteenth Amendment Act, 1963, following concerns related to separatist movements in different parts of the country.

2. Public Order

Public order is a wide and nuanced concept. It refers to the normal state of society where citizens can peacefully pursue their daily activities without threats of violence, disruption, or crime.

• If an assembly is likely to incite violence, lead to riots, or disturb peace, the State can impose restrictions or even prohibit it.
• Public order is distinguished from “law and order” or “security of the State”; it is a more localized concern about public peace and tranquility.

In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966), the Supreme Court clarified that “public order” is something more than mere law and order. Minor infractions may not affect public order unless they disturb the community at large.

Examples:

• A protest blocking a major highway leading to massive public inconvenience can be restricted.
• A gathering promoting hate speech that could provoke communal riots can be prohibited.

3. Morality

Morality, as used in Article 19(3), refers to public standards of decency and societal values.

Although morality is more prominently cited in the context of freedom of speech and expression or freedom of association, it can still be invoked concerning assemblies when:

• An assembly promotes obscene, vulgar, or immoral conduct openly in public spaces.
• The gathering leads to behaviors that offend public decency or societal norms.

Example:

• A public demonstration that involves graphic or sexually explicit performances in a public place could be restricted on grounds of morality.

It is important to note that courts often exercise caution when interpreting “morality” because standards can vary across cultures, regions, and communities.

Nature of Reasonable Restrictions

Any restriction imposed under Article 19(3) must meet specific constitutional tests. Restrictions must be reasonable, proportional, and legally sanctioned. Let’s break these aspects down:

1. Reasonableness

The restriction must be reasonable, meaning it must not be arbitrary, excessive, or disproportionate.

The concept of reasonableness is central to Fundamental Rights jurisprudence in India. It acts as a safeguard to ensure that:

• Citizens’ rights are not unjustifiably curtailed,
• The executive and legislature cannot abuse their powers,
• There is a rational relationship between the objective sought (such as preserving public order) and the means adopted.

In State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952), the Supreme Court emphasized that reasonableness must be tested from both substantive and procedural standpoints:

• Substantive: Is the restriction excessive compared to the need?
• Procedural: Was the citizen given a fair hearing or an opportunity to appeal?

2. Proportionality

The principle of proportionality means that the measures taken by the State must not be harsher than necessary to achieve the intended goal.

In applying this principle:

• The severity of the restriction must match the gravity of the threat.
• Blanket bans or extreme actions (like internet shutdowns, police crackdowns) must be justifiable with compelling evidence of imminent danger.
• The State must prefer the least restrictive means to achieve its aim.

Example: If a protest causes minor inconvenience to traffic, completely banning it may not be proportionate. Instead, rerouting traffic or permitting the protest at a different venue could be reasonable alternatives.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Modern Dental College case (2016) further entrenched proportionality as a core doctrine under Indian constitutional law.

3. Based on Law

Restrictions must be backed by an existing law or a valid legislative framework. Executive orders alone cannot override fundamental rights unless supported by legal statutes.

• Rule of Law: The government cannot impose arbitrary or discretionary bans.
• Clarity and Precision: The law must clearly define the scope and circumstances of restrictions to prevent misuse.

Relevant Laws include:

• Section 144, CrPC: Empowering Magistrates to prohibit gatherings in cases of apprehended danger.
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): To counter threats against sovereignty and integrity.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Provisions on unlawful assembly, rioting, etc.

The judiciary has consistently held that vague and overly broad laws imposing restrictions are unconstitutional.

Judicial Safeguards Against Abuse

Courts in India have developed safeguards to ensure that Article 19(3) is not misused:

• Strict Scrutiny: Courts closely scrutinize restrictions to ensure their necessity and proportionality.
• Review of Executive Action: Courts can strike down prohibitory orders if found arbitrary.
• Procedural Safeguards: Citizens must be given opportunities to contest bans (e.g., challenging Section 144 orders).

The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) reaffirmed that restrictions on fundamental rights (such as curfews or internet bans) must meet tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

Important Examples Where Reasonable Restrictions Were Applied

Legislative Framework Governing Assemblies in India

While the Constitution of India guarantees the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b), this right is subject to reasonable regulation to maintain public order, morality, and the sovereignty of the nation. To operationalize these restrictions and manage assemblies in practical terms, several important legislative frameworks have been established. These laws lay down rules, procedures, and powers for the authorities to regulate, restrict, or facilitate public gatherings depending on the situation.

The major laws governing assemblies include the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), and various State Police Acts. Let’s explore them in detail.

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860

The IPC, being India’s primary criminal code, provides the substantive definitions and penalties relating to unlawful assemblies, riots, and related offenses.

Section 141 Unlawful Assembly

Definition: An assembly of five or more persons is designated as an unlawful assembly if the common object of the persons assembled is:

• To overawe by criminal force the Central or any State Government or any public servant,
• To resist the execution of any law or legal process,
• To commit any mischief, criminal trespass, or other offense,
• To take possession of property or deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right,
• To enforce any right or supposed right by criminal force.

Key Points:

• Mere gathering of five or more persons is not illegal; the intent or common object makes it unlawful.
• Even a peaceful assembly can be deemed unlawful if its purpose becomes unlawful during its course.
• If the assembly’s object is violent, destructive, or illegal, it immediately attracts penal consequences.

Punishment: Under Section 143, membership in an unlawful assembly is itself a punishable offense.

Section 144: Power to Issue Orders in Urgent Cases of Nuisance or Apprehended Danger

Section 144 empowers the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or any Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government to:

• Pass orders prohibiting assembly of four or more people,
• Impose curfews or restrict public movement,
• Prohibit carrying arms in certain areas.
• Purpose:
• Prevent obstruction, annoyance, injury to any person lawfully employed,
• Prevent danger to human life, health, or safety,
• Prevent disturbance of public tranquility or riot or affray.

Nature of Power:

• Preventive and urgent: Section 144 is invoked to preempt possible dangers, not just to react after harm occurs.
• Temporary: An order under Section 144 usually lasts for two months, though it can be extended up to six months by the State Government.

Example:

• During volatile political protests or communal tensions, Section 144 is frequently invoked to prevent large gatherings.

In Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (1970), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 144 but stressed that it must be used sparingly and with due regard to fundamental rights.

2. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973

The CrPC provides the procedural framework for the maintenance of public order, empowering the police and the executive magistracy to regulate assemblies.

Section 129 Dispersal of Unlawful Assemblies by Use of Civil Force

If an unlawful assembly or any assembly of persons likely to cause a disturbance of public peace does not disperse upon being commanded to do so by a police officer or magistrate, they may be dispersed by force.

If necessary, military force can be requisitioned, but only under strict supervision.

Key Points:

• Dispersal must always be preceded by a warning to the assembly.
• Minimum necessary force should be used.
• Deaths or serious injuries caused during dispersal invite judicial scrutiny.

Example: If protesters start rioting or vandalizing property, police may order dispersal, failing which, they may use water cannons, tear gas, baton charges, and in extreme cases, even firearms under strict conditions.

Section 144: Prohibitory Orders

Overlap with IPC:

• As discussed above, Section 144 CrPC is extensively used to pre-empt unlawful gatherings.
• Under CrPC, it provides procedural details, timelines, and conditions on how prohibitory orders must be passed.

Safeguards:

• The order must be in writing.
• The reasons must be recorded.
• Affected parties have the right to challenge the order before a court.

3. Police Acts

Each Indian state has its own Police Act or local policing regulations that further govern assemblies at a state and city level.

Features of the State Police Acts:

• Organizers must apply for permission from police authorities before holding rallies, processions, or large public meetings.
• Permissions help arrange for traffic control, crowd management, and maintaining law and order.
• Restriction on the use of loudspeakers beyond permitted decibel limits.
• Prohibition against blocking public roads and highways.
• Ban on slogans or speeches that may incite violence.
• Authorities can cancel or change previously granted permission if intelligence reports suggest a risk of violence or public disorder.
• Police are deployed to manage traffic and prevent road blockages.
• Police ensure that different groups do not clash.
• Police handle emergencies like stampedes or accidents.

Examples of Relevant Laws:

• The Delhi Police Act, 1978: Governs assemblies and public processions in the national capital.
• The Bombay Police Act, 1951: Regulates assemblies, processions, and imposes control in Maharashtra.

Other Relevant Laws and Provisions

Apart from the IPC, CrPC, and Police Acts, other laws sometimes invoked include:

The Arms Act, 1959:

• Prohibits carrying weapons to any assembly or public gathering.
• Ensures that gatherings remain non-violent.

The Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and The Disaster Management Act, 2005:

• During health emergencies (such as COVID-19), assemblies were restricted or prohibited altogether for public safety.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967:

• If an assembly is found to have links with terrorism, secessionism, or anti-national activities, it can be declared unlawful under UAPA.

Important Case Laws on Freedom of Assembly under Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution 

In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Anr. (1973), the Supreme Court held that the right to hold public meetings on streets or public places is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b), and the State cannot impose arbitrary restrictions on this right. The Court struck down Rule 7 of the Bombay Police Rules, which required prior permission for holding public meetings, saying it gave uncontrolled discretion to the police and was unconstitutional. The Court made it clear that while regulation is permissible to maintain public order, absolute prohibition is not.

In Kameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (1962), the Supreme Court dealt with a rule prohibiting government servants from participating in any demonstration or strike. The Court held that a blanket prohibition on peaceful demonstrations violated the citizens’ fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(b) (freedom of assembly). However, it clarified that while peaceful demonstrations are protected, the right to strike is not recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution.

In In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012), the Supreme Court examined the police crackdown on protesters sleeping at Ramlila Maidan during Baba Ramdev’s protest. The Court ruled that the right to peaceful protest and assembly is a constitutional right and criticized the police action as a violation of fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that the State must respect and protect citizens’ right to protest, even while ensuring law and order.

In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), concerning protests at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). However, it also noted that such protests must be balanced with the rights of other citizens, particularly the right to a peaceful life without constant disruption. The Court held that authorities could regulate protests by designating specific protest sites but could not impose a blanket ban.

In the Amarnath Shrine Board Case (2008) (State of J&K v. Masoodi), although primarily about a different issue, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court observed that peaceful protests are integral to a democratic society. However, violent protests, blockades, or those disrupting essential services are not protected under Article 19(1)(b).

In Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961), the Court dealt with the imposition of Section 144 of the CrPC and held that reasonable restrictions could be imposed under extraordinary situations to maintain public peace. However, misuse of such powers can violate the right to peaceful assembly, and courts must scrutinize whether Section 144 orders are truly based on legitimate concerns.

In Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others (2009), the Supreme Court, while dealing with violence during public protests, laid down guidelines that protest organizers and leaders would be personally liable for damage caused during violent assemblies. The Court stressed that the right to assembly does not extend to destroying property or creating public disorder.

Verdict

The freedom of assembly under Article 19(1)(b) is one of the foundational stones of India’s democracy. It enables people to come together, advocate for their rights, protest injustices, celebrate culture, and engage with public life.

However, this right carries with it certain responsibilities, to ensure peace, to respect public order, and to remain within the constitutional framework. The State, too, has a responsibility to respect, protect, and facilitate peaceful assemblies and not suppress dissent under the garb of maintaining public order.

As long as democracy remains vibrant in India, the right to peaceful assembly will remain a cherished and vigorously defended freedom.

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…