20 May 2026 Legal Updates

‘Right To Protest Is Fundamental, But Public Disorder Cannot Be Allowed’: CJI Surya Kant

The Supreme Court reiterated that citizens have a constitutional right to peaceful protest, but demonstrations that create law-and-order problems or inconvenience the public are not protected.

Case Details

(a) Case Title:

• Prakashjhot Samajik Sanstha v. Union of India & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Bench:

• Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

(d) Area of Law:

• Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Right to Protest, Judicial Restraint

Facts of the Case

• The case arose from a dispute regarding the proposed naming of the Navi Mumbai International Airport. The Maharashtra Government proposed naming the airport as: “Loknete D.B. Patil Navi Mumbai International Airport.”
• A petition was filed by Prakashjhot Samajik Sanstha seeking a direction to the Central Government to take a time-bound decision on the State Government’s proposal.
• During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that several young individuals protesting in connection with the naming issue were facing criminal cases.
• While addressing these concerns, Chief Justice Surya Kant made important observations regarding the constitutional right to protest and the limitations attached to such rights in a democratic society.
• The Court eventually disposed of the matter with liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies before the competent authority.

Issues Raised

• Whether citizens possess a constitutional right to protest peacefully?
• Whether protests causing public inconvenience or law-and-order issues are constitutionally protected?
• Whether courts can direct the government to take policy decisions within a fixed timeframe?
• Whether naming of public infrastructure falls within judicial review or executive policy domain?

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued:

• Delay By Authorities: The Union Government had allegedly failed to take a decision on the airport naming proposal despite repeated demands.
• Criminal Cases Against Protesters: Young protestors raising concerns over the naming issue were allegedly being subjected to criminal prosecution.
• Need For Judicial Intervention: The petitioner sought a direction from the Court compelling the government to decide the matter within a fixed period.
• Democratic Rights: Citizens have a constitutional right to voice concerns and participate in democratic protests.

Contentions / Observations By The Court

The Supreme Court made several important observations:

1. Right To Protest Exists:

• Every citizen has a right to peaceful and lawful protest.

2. Public Disorder Cannot Be Tolerated

Protests cannot:

• threaten public peace,
• disrupt law and order,
• or inconvenience ordinary citizens.

3. Policy Decisions Are Executive Functions:

• Naming an airport falls within the executive/policy domain and courts ordinarily should not interfere.

4. Democratic Processes Must Be Followed:

• Citizens may continue to pursue lawful remedies and democratic representations before authorities.

Court’s Reasoning & Key Findings

1. Right To Peaceful Protest Is Constitutionally Protected

The Court reaffirmed that peaceful protest is a part of:

• Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a),
• Right to Assemble Peacefully under Article 19(1)(b).

The CJI observed: “Everybody has a right to peaceful and lawful protest.”

The Court acknowledged that dissent is an essential feature of democracy.

2. Fundamental Rights Are Subject To Reasonable Restrictions

The Court clarified that: The right to protest is not absolute.

The CJI stated: “But not come on streets and create problems for the common man.”

The Court emphasized that protests cannot:

• create threats,
• disturb public order,
• block roads indefinitely,
• or disrupt normal life.

Thus, constitutional freedoms must be balanced against: public order, safety, and rights of other citizens.

3. Doctrine Of Reasonable Restrictions

• The Court’s observations are rooted in: Article 19(2), Article 19(3).
• These provisions allow the State to impose restrictions in interests of: public order, sovereignty, integrity of India, morality, security of the State.
• Thus: Peaceful assembly is protected, Violent or disruptive protests are not.

4. Judicial Restraint In Policy Matters

The Court refused to enter into the question of:

• what the airport should be named,
• or whether the government should decide immediately.

The CJI remarked: “Is it the function of the Court that what should be the name of an airport?”

This reflects the constitutional principle of: Separation of Powers where:

• policy decisions belong primarily to the Executive,
• not the Judiciary.

5. Courts Cannot Force Executive Decisions Unnecessarily

• The petitioner requested a time-bound direction.
• However, the Court observed that: such orders may become embarrassing or unnecessary if the government later decides otherwise.
• The CJI stated: “Please don't ask for an order that become embarrassing for us also.”
• This highlights: Judicial caution, Institutional restraint.

6. Democracy Requires Persistence & Political Engagement

• The Court noted that in a democracy: Citizens can continue making representations, Authorities may eventually respond through democratic pressure.
• The CJI observed: “In a democratic setup, authorities will ultimately realize that some decision has to be taken.”

Decision / Final Verdict

1. The Supreme Court:

• disposed of the petition.

2. Liberty was granted:

• to the petitioner to approach the competent authority.

3. The Court declined to:

• direct the naming of the airport,
• or issue a time-bound order to the government.

4. The Court reiterated:

• peaceful protest is protected,
• but protests causing law-and-order problems are impermissible.

Legal Principles Established

1. Right To Protest Is A Fundamental Right

• The Constitution protects: Peaceful dissent, Lawful assembly, Democratic participation.
• Protected under: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(b).

2. Fundamental Rights Are Not Absolute

• The judgment reiterates: Constitutional rights can be restricted for: public order, safety, morality, security.
• Thus: Disruptive protests are not constitutionally protected.

3. Public Convenience Is Also A Constitutional Concern

• The Court balanced: protesters’ rights, with rights of ordinary citizens.
• The judiciary emphasized: Roads and public spaces cannot be indefinitely blocked.

4. Judicial Restraint In Policy Matters

Courts generally avoid interfering in:

• naming disputes,
• executive policy,
• administrative decisions.

Unless: arbitrariness, illegality, constitutional violation, is shown.

5. Separation Of Powers

The judgment reflects the constitutional principle that:

• Legislature makes laws,
• Executive implements policy,
• Judiciary interprets law.

Naming airports is primarily: An executive function.

6. Democracy Functions Through Institutional Mechanisms

The Court emphasized: Demands should first be pursued through:

• representations,
• negotiations,
• democratic pressure, before seeking judicial intervention.