Policing Peaceful Protest: What Then Remains of Democracy?

Can democracy survive when peaceful protest is restricted? This editorial examines citizens’ constitutional rights, police accountability, electoral transparency and the responsibility of the Election Commission in safeguarding democratic freedoms.

Editorial Analysis

Published: October 09, 2026 | Editor in Chief

शांतिपूर्ण प्रतिरोध पर पहरा: फिर लोकतंत्र?

Abstract: दिल्ली में मुख्य चुनाव आयुक्त के विरुद्ध प्रदर्शनों और मतदाता सूची के विशेष गहन पुनरीक्षण (SIR) को लेकर उठे सवाल लोकतंत्र में असहमति, नागरिक अधिकारों और संवैधानिक जवाबदेही की परीक्षा हैं। शांतिपूर्ण प्रदर्शन पर प्रतिबंध, प्रशासनिक शक्ति के प्रयोग और सुरक्षाकर्मियों के विवेक से जुड़े प्रश्नों पर यह संपादकीय विचार करता है। निर्वाचन आयोग की विश्वसनीयता केवल उसकी संवैधानिक प्रतिष्ठा से नहीं, बल्कि पारदर्शिता, निष्पक्षता और जवाबदेही से सुनिश्चित होती है। लोकतंत्र में बहुमत को शासन का अधिकार है, नागरिकों की आवाज दबाने का नहीं। यदि नागरिक शांतिपूर्वक विरोध भी नहीं कर सकते और सत्ता से सवाल पूछने की स्वतंत्रता सीमित हो जाए, तो लोकतंत्र का वास्तविक अर्थ क्या रह जाता है?

Keywords: शांतिपूर्ण प्रदर्शन, भारतीय लोकतंत्र, अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता, नागरिक अधिकार, चुनाव आयोग, ज्ञानेश कुमार, एसआईआर, पुलिस जवाबदेही, लोकतांत्रिक अधिकार, सत्ता की जवाबदेही।

If citizens are denied even the freedom to organise peaceful protests, what meaning does democracy retain?

The protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar raise a question that goes beyond the permission to demonstrate. At stake are the citizens’ right to express dissent and the accountability of those in power. Concerns regarding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the functioning of the Election Commission must be addressed through facts and transparency, not by restricting opportunities to raise questions.

Senior literary figure Geetanjali Shree has questioned the tendency to treat the protection of democracy as the sole responsibility of those who take to the streets. She asks whether the conscience of security personnel and officials, ordered to silence protesters, tells them nothing. Her question concerns not merely administrative action but also constitutional responsibility.

Why Should Peaceful Protest Be Feared?

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees citizens the freedom of expression and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. These rights are subject to lawful restrictions in the interest of public order, but there is a clear distinction between maintaining law and order and suppressing dissent.

The administration has a duty to prevent violence, not to make peaceful protest impossible. If a demonstration creates traffic or security concerns at a particular location, alternative arrangements can be made. Restrictions must be necessary, lawful and proportionate. Otherwise, the process of seeking permission itself can become a means of rendering citizens’ rights ineffective.

The fundamental question is this: if citizens are denied a place, permission and an opportunity to assemble peacefully, where can they publicly register their grievances?

To Whom Are Public Officials Accountable?

Government officials and security personnel are not representatives of a political party; they are functionaries of the constitutional system. Their duty is to enforce the law impartially. Obeying orders is part of administrative discipline, but ignoring the legality of an action and its impact on citizens’ rights cannot be regarded as faithful discharge of duty.

Whenever protesters are detained or force is used against them, there must be a clear legal basis for such action. Any unjustified use of authority must also invite accountability. In a democracy, the legitimacy of state power depends on whether it is exercised in accordance with the law.

The Election Commission Must Answer Questions

The credibility of the Election Commission is essential to free and fair elections. Revising electoral rolls may be necessary, but ensuring that no eligible citizen is deprived of the right to vote is equally important.

Concerns about the SIR process must be addressed through transparent data, clear rules and accessible grievance-redressal mechanisms. Allegations alone do not establish an institution’s guilt, but invoking its prestige to dismiss questions is equally unacceptable. Respect for constitutional institutions cannot be separated from accountability.

Then, For Whom Does Democracy Exist?

In a democracy, a majority is entitled to form a government, not to monopolise the public voice. Protesters have a responsibility to remain peaceful and respect the law. The administration, in turn, must enforce the law while protecting their rights. Since the state possesses greater power, it must also bear greater responsibility.

Geetanjali Shree’s question exposes this fundamental contradiction. If citizens cannot publicly register their grievances, who will hold those in power accountable? If restrictions become the response to dissent, what space will remain for democratic dialogue?

Democracy is not merely the right to vote; it is also the freedom to question those in power. If peaceful protest is placed under siege, who will protect citizens’ rights and hold the government accountable? This is the most fundamental question facing democracy today: If there is no room for peaceful protest, what remains of democracy?

Dr. R. Achal Pulastey

Editor-in-Chief, Eastern Scientist

A multifaceted scholar with a keen insight into—and a research focus on—socio-cultural, folkloric-literary, economic, geopolitical dynamics, and Ayurveda.