Should dissent be confined to a designated site, even when the issue demands that people take their protest to the offices of those responsible?
The story so far
On October 12, as Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi led a protest in Delhi against the SIR and the Election Commission of India, calling on lawyers, students, and others to join from wherever they could, protesters in Bengaluru were stopped from marching to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) of Karnataka. More than 100 protesters were allegedly abused, manhandled, and detained by the police.
The CEO’s office had, just days earlier, witnessed an unprecedented sit-in by Karnataka’s Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar and his Cabinet colleagues. Mr. Shivakumar, who also participated in the Delhi protest, and his Cabinet colleagues, sat outside the office of the CEO of Karnataka for over five hours over the reported misuse of Form-7 applications (seeking deletion of names) during the SIR.
The BJP criticised the sit-in, arguing that the CEO’s office is not a designated protest site. Mr. Shivakumar, however, denied that it was a protest. He argued that he was only ‘waiting’ to speak to the CEO.
This is not the first time the police have invoked restrictions on protests to stop people from taking their demands to the streets. How did Freedom Park become Bengaluru’s designated protest site, what does the law actually permit or not permit, and how have the police used the law to deal with dissent?
Why is Freedom Park the designated protest site in Bengaluru?
In Bengaluru, where traffic congestion is a daily concern, protests on public roads came under judicial scrutiny in 2021.
The Karnataka High Court took suo motu notice of media reports about traffic being paralysed for hours during protests by anganwadi workers and State transport corporation employees on March 2 that year.
A division bench of the Karnataka High Court directed the State Government to frame rules to regulate protests, referring to a Supreme Court judgment on the right to protest and the regulation of public spaces.
The High Court recognised peaceful protest as a fundamental right but said it should not come at the cost of others’ rights. It also noted that Bengaluru had a dedicated protest venue at Freedom Park.
Following the court’s intervention, the Bengaluru Police issued the Licensing and Regulation of Protests, Demonstrations and Protest Marches (Bengaluru City) Order, 2021, under Section 31(1)(o) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
The 2021 order replaced the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Processions (Bengaluru City) Order, 2009, which required prior police licence for public assembly of more than 250 people and processions of more than 25 people, with permission assessed on factors such as traffic and public inconvenience.
The 2021 order introduced a new framework for regulating protests, designating Freedom Park as the main protest venue.
Civil society groups have since challenged the restrictions, arguing that a mechanism meant to regulate demonstrations and prevent traffic disruption has become a way to restrict where people can protest.
Does the order prohibit protests everywhere else in Bengaluru?
No. While the order identifies Freedom Park as the designated protest venue, it also allows protests at other places in Bengaluru, excluding prohibited areas, for a limited number of people, with the permission of the licencing authority.
The order (Clause 4(i)) empowers the Commissioner of Police to designate another suitable venue, depending on the situation. The order allows protests and demonstrations at other places, subject to conditions set by the licencing authority.
Organisers must ordinarily apply at least five clear days in advance. The licencing authority can refuse permission on various grounds, including public interest, possible law and order problems, traffic obstruction, parking constraints, and nuisance to nearby institutions or residents.
Under Clause 15, refusals must be communicated in writing, with reasons. Organisers can appeal against the decision, and the appellate authority must pass an order within 24 hours of hearing the matter.
The order, therefore, does not impose a blanket ban on protests outside Freedom Park. It gives the police the power to regulate demonstrations elsewhere, subject to the conditions it lays down.
How has the order been used to restrict dissent?
From pro-Palestine film screenings and student discussions to an awareness walk around Hebbal lake, the police have intervened in gatherings that organisers say were not even protests.
The police registered three suo motu FIRs against pro-Palestine demonstrators, two of which were later quashed by the Karnataka High Court. They intervened in indoor events, including film screenings and discussions on Palestine, with organisers and activists alleging that police pressure forced some events to be cancelled.
In September, a civic group planned an awareness walk titled ‘Protect our lakes and green spaces’ at Hebbal lake, where a portion of the land is expected to be acquired for the short tunnel project. A day before the walk, the police issued notices describing it as a protest march from Dairy Science College to Hebbal Lake. The organisers maintained that the walk was meant to help people understand the areas that could be affected by the project. The event was eventually called off after the organisers received the notices.
Student discussions faced similar scrutiny. In February, at Azim Premji University, the administration filed a police complaint against its own student-run Spark Reading Circle over a planned discussion on the 1991 Kunan-Poshpora incident in Kashmir. This followed an incident in which ABVP members entered the campus, assaulted students, and security personnel, and vandalised property.
The Congress government has also faced criticism over police action against expression of solidarity with Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
During her first visit to Bengaluru for a ‘GenZ March’, Neha Bora, national president of the All India Students’ Association (AISA), who has emerged as a prominent face of the anti-SIR protest, sharply rebuked the Congress government in Karnataka after an FIR was registered against a woman who displayed placards supporting two activists at a student protest. Ms. Bora challenged parties that claim to oppose the BJP to lead by example, arguing that mere lip service to an anti-fascist agenda was not enough; they had to demonstrate what pro-student politics actually meant.
What are activists demanding?
Activists want the Karnataka government to withdraw the 2021 order restricting protests in Bengaluru and restore the earlier 2009 order, which did not confine demonstrations to a single venue. They argue that the restrictions prevent people from taking their demands directly to the authorities concerned.
Horatada Hakkigaagi Janandolana, or the Campaign for the Right to Protest, whose members met Siddaramaiah when he was chief minister and held discussions with multiple police commissioners, has again written to Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar seeking withdrawal of the order. It has argued that the restrictions were introduced through a State Government order, not imposed by the High Court, and that the government can withdraw or amend them.
Activists say they are seeking not just accountability for the use of force, but a review of the rules under which the police stopped the march on October 12.
What has government said?
Following the October 12 incident which drew severe backlash, Mr. Shivakumar sought a report on the police action and said accountability would follow if the police were found to have used unnecessary force.
“The right to peaceful protest is fundamental to our democracy. We cannot demand that right for ourselves in Delhi and deny it to others in Bengaluru,” he said. He added that disagreement with the Election Commission of India, the State government or even the Chief Minister personally did not diminish anyone’s right to protest peacefully.
Home Minister Priyank Kharge said he had instructed the police to ensure that peaceful demonstrations are not disrupted. “In a democracy, peaceful dissent is not a threat to law and order. It is a right that law and order must protect,” he said.