Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure on Thursday over reports that police personnel assaulted demonstrators gathered at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, calling the incident “very distressing” and stating that he was “dismayed” to see such conduct from those entrusted with upholding the law. The remarks were made from the bench during court proceedings and underline the judiciary’s continuing insistence that citizens exercising the constitutional right to peaceful protest must be protected, not penalised.
What Happened
During the hearing, Justice Bhuyan referred to reports of police using force against protesters at Jantar Mantar, the iconic protest venue in the heart of New Delhi that has served as a designated space for public demonstration for decades. According to the court’s observations, police personnel were reported to have assaulted protesters, prompting the judge to describe the conduct as “very distressing” and to express dismay at what he characterised as an unacceptable use of force against citizens engaged in peaceful assembly.
The bench, while acknowledging the importance of maintaining public order, drew a clear line between legitimate law enforcement duties and what it suggested was disproportionate action against demonstrators. Justice Bhuyan’s remarks specifically used the word “assault,” a term that carries a more severe legal connotation than routine crowd control and signals the court’s concern about the nature of the force reportedly used.
The comments did not emerge in isolation. They came alongside a related observation by Justice Bhuyan that students, in particular, must not face punitive action merely for expressing different opinions or asking questions, a position that dovetails with the broader principle that dissent and disagreement, when expressed peacefully, fall within the protections of the Constitution.
Why It Matters
The significance of the Supreme Court’s remarks lies less in any specific order issued and more in the weight that the apex judiciary’s language carries. When a sitting Supreme Court justice publicly describes police conduct as “distressing” and says he is “dismayed,” the statement functions both as a signal to law enforcement agencies and as reassurance to citizens that the higher judiciary is watching how protest-related policing is conducted.
The right to peaceful assembly and the right to free expression are foundational to India’s constitutional framework, anchored in Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantee citizens the freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Equally, the state has a legitimate obligation to maintain public order. The tension between these two imperatives is a recurring feature of Indian democracy, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly intervened to clarify that the right to protest is not an unbounded licence for disorder, but that it is also not a privilege that can be revoked at the discretion of law enforcement.
Justice Bhuyan’s remarks also acquire meaning in the broader context of recurring complaints about the policing of demonstrations in Delhi and other cities, where critics, civil liberties groups, and opposition politicians have alleged that protesters, particularly students and activists, have on multiple occasions been subjected to detentions, baton charges, and use of force that goes beyond what is required to maintain order. The court’s language signals that such complaints are not falling on deaf ears at the highest level of the Indian judiciary.
Background and Context
Jantar Mantar, located near Parliament and Connaught Place in central Delhi, has functioned for decades as one of the few officially recognised spaces in the national capital where citizens can gather to protest. The site, originally built as an 18th-century astronomical observatory, has over the years hosted a wide spectrum of demonstrations, from farmer agitations and trade union rallies to student protests, anti-corruption movements, and campaigns on social and environmental issues. It remains a symbolic venue for public dissent in the Indian capital.
The site, however, has also been the focus of recurring tensions between protesters and law enforcement. Over the years, multiple agitations at Jantar Mantar have been accompanied by complaints about restrictions on gathering, the use of barricades, detentions under various sections of the law, and occasional reports of physical force being used against demonstrators. The Delhi Police, which has jurisdiction over the area, has consistently maintained that its actions are aimed at preventing law and order disruptions.
Justice Bhuyan’s specific judicial record on matters of civil liberties and policing has drawn attention in legal circles. His remark that students must not face punitive action for expressing different opinions or asking questions reflects a wider debate in India over the treatment of student protesters, particularly those at central universities, who have alleged the use of force, disciplinary action, and police cases against them for participating in demonstrations on campuses and at designated protest sites.
The Supreme Court has, in previous judgments, underlined that the right to protest is a fundamental right, while also laying down conditions under which the state may impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, decency, and morality. The court’s evolving approach has generally stressed proportionality, the principle that any restriction on the right to protest must be narrowly tailored and not strike at the core of the right itself.
What to Watch Next
Several developments will help determine whether Justice Bhuyan’s remarks translate into tangible outcomes or remain on the judicial record as expressions of concern. The first is whether the Supreme Court or any bench chooses to follow up on the observations with formal directions to the Delhi Police or other agencies. Such directions could range from a request for a factual report on the incident to specific guidelines on the policing of protests at Jantar Mantar and similar venues.
The second is whether any formal complaint or first information report follows from the alleged assault. Law enforcement agencies often face public and judicial scrutiny when reports of force against peaceful protesters surface, and the next step in such cases typically involves an internal inquiry or an inquiry ordered by a magistrate.
The third is the broader trajectory of cases before the Supreme Court and various High Courts dealing with the policing of protests, including petitions seeking clearer guidelines on the use of force, the right to assemble without prior permission in designated areas, and the treatment of student and activist demonstrators. Any orders in those cases will shape the legal framework within which future protests at Jantar Mantar and elsewhere are conducted.
Finally, civil society and legal commentators will be watching how law enforcement agencies, particularly the Delhi Police, respond publicly to the judge’s remarks. Statements from official spokespersons, clarifications on the circumstances of the alleged assault, and any disciplinary or administrative action against personnel found to have acted improperly will be closely scrutinised.
Conclusion
Justice Ujjal Bhuyan’s observations from the bench add a prominent judicial voice to an ongoing national debate over the boundaries of lawful protest and the limits of police action. By describing the reported assault on Jantar Mantar protesters as “very distressing” and stating that he was “dismayed” to see police personnel act in such a manner, the Supreme Court judge has signalled that the higher judiciary regards the policing of peaceful demonstrations as a matter warranting close judicial attention. The remarks, while not constituting a formal ruling, carry the moral and institutional authority of the Supreme Court and are likely to be cited in future litigation and public discussions about the right to protest in India. Whether they catalyse concrete reforms in how demonstrations are policed in Delhi and elsewhere will depend on how the relevant authorities respond, how the judiciary chooses to follow up, and how citizens and civil society continue to invoke the principles Justice Bhuyan has underscored.
Analysis:
The court’s framing of the alleged police conduct as “distressing” and “dismaying” is significant because it shifts the burden of justification, at least rhetorically, from the protesters to the state. By expressing dismay at the behaviour of police personnel, rather than at the act of protest itself, the judge has implicitly endorsed the premise that peaceful assembly is the norm and that departures from it by law enforcement are the aberration requiring explanation. This framing is consistent with the broader constitutional philosophy of the Indian Supreme Court, which has generally treated the right to protest as essential to democratic functioning rather than as a concession to be tolerated. At the same time, the court has historically been careful to preserve the state’s authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of protests, and Justice Bhuyan’s remarks do not appear to challenge that authority in principle, only its exercise in this instance.
Sources
Hindustan Times: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/very-distressing-sc-judge-justice-ujjal-bhuyan-dismayed-to-see-police-personnel-assault-jantar-mantar-protesters-101788534135540.html
Source: Hindustan Times – India News
Corrections
If you believe this article contains an error, contact Herald Express with the source URL and supporting evidence.
Story synopsis gathered from: Hindustan Times – India News — source
