Democracy is not defined solely by regular elections; its true test lies in how it handles expressions of dissent. Dharnas, demonstrations, rallies, and public meetings are not merely political activities but also constitutional means of dialogue between citizens and the state. The strength of democracy lies not in suppressing dissent, but in listening to, understanding, and finding solutions within constitutional frameworks. Therefore, when the state uses force to control a protest, the question is no longer merely one of law and order; it also involves civil liberties, human rights, and the state’s democratic accountability.
A petition filed in the Supreme Court regarding the alleged use of pellet guns during the “Chalo Sansad” protest held at Jantar Mantar in Delhi has brought this very question to the center of national debate. The petitioners, including Yashovardhan Azad, a former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer and former Special Director of the Intelligence Bureau, allege that such “projectiles” were used against protesters without adequate warning, resulting in numerous injuries. The petition demands a ban on the use of metal pellets during civil protests, and provision for treatment, rehabilitation, and compensation for the injured.
The Supreme Court has taken this matter seriously and sought responses from the Central Government and the relevant authorities. It has also directed the preservation of available records and records of the ammunition used. The Court’s approach is noteworthy. It has neither held any party guilty nor imposed an immediate ban on any equipment. It clearly indicates that any conclusion will be based solely on facts, evidence, and constitutional scrutiny. It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that decisions should be based on evidence and the law, not on public sentiment or political pressure.
In this context, former Police Commissioner Kiran Bedi’s comments are also noteworthy. She states that force cannot be the answer to every protest. Democratic policing should be based on dialogue, mediation, and trust. If pellet guns were used, it is also a matter of investigation whether their use was in accordance with established standard operating procedures. This approach is important because it is grounded in administrative experience and a modern concept of democratic policing.
The real question is not whether the police should have the right to use force. In a modern state, police and security forces have the necessary powers to maintain law and order, but a democratic regime does not consider these powers to be unlimited. The legitimacy of the use of force is determined by its necessity, proportionality, and accountability. For this reason, the principle of “minimum necessary force” has been accepted in democratic systems around the world. This means that the state should use only as much force as is necessary to control the situation. If less risky and more humane alternatives are available, the use of more harmful means should be a last resort.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to freedom of expression, and Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to peaceful and unarmed assembly. Of course, these rights are not absolute. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on these grounds based on public order, state security, and other constitutional grounds. However, the criterion for these restrictions is not the convenience of the state, but the Constitution. The state’s responsibility is not merely to maintain order, but also to ensure that civil liberties are not unnecessarily eroded in the name of protecting order.
This is why the Jantar Mantar controversy is not limited to a single demonstration or the use of a single tool. It has become emblematic of the broader question of whether India’s crowd control policy has evolved in accordance with twenty-first-century democratic and human rights standards, or whether it has still not fully broken free from the colonial policing mentality. The answer to this question lies not only in court decisions, but also in police reforms, administrative sensitivity, and a democratic political culture.