Opinion

Courts need to take a 360-degree view of agitations

Can protest rights be exercised without undermining the rights of traders, commuters, workers and residents?

October 22, 2026

When protest crosses the line into public disorder

New Delhi has been badgered by a bunch of riff-raff, alleging lapses in the functioning of the Central Election Commission, singling out the Chief Election Commissioner, for lapses in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

It is an open secret that lakhs of Bangladeshis have infiltrated into India and managed to get themselves adjusted in various electoral constituencies across the country. In this dubious adjustment, the Bangladeshis were assisted by various communal organizations, communal political parties, NGOs, and many corrupt officials. The general fear was that the infiltrators could easily subvert the electoral process in the states and the Centre, and bring about a drastic change in the country’s political and religious landscape. In order to prevent a dramatic collapse of democracy, the Central government had to devise a mechanism to identify and delete such infiltrators from the electoral process.

The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is an exercise undertaken by the Election Commission of India to verify and revise electoral rolls through house-to-house enumeration, pre-filled forms, and verification of old voter data. The Special Intensive Revision has been conducted on eight different occasions in the past, with the last one taking place between 2002 and 2004. There is an appellate forum that can handle any type of grievance.

The Bangladeshi infiltration, which has been going on surreptitiously for decades, has reached alarming proportions, resulting in the creation of religion-based enclaves, functioning as solid vote banks, for political parties and their candidates, willing to compromise and even willingly connive at profound illegalities, that would have gradually led to India being converted into an Islamic state, without need for any warfare. Alarmed at the evolving demographic alteration happening, and the fact of declining birth rate among Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians, the only appropriate legal course of action was to identify the illegitimate infiltrator-voters and weed them out.

The SIR had the formidable task of also ensuring that electoral rolls are accurate by removing the names of deceased, permanently shifted, duplicate, and non-citizen electors while ensuring that eligible citizens are not left out. The nationwide SIR process was announced on 27 October 2025.

During the revision process, enumerators identified up to 11 distinct categories of logical discrepancies expanding from the original four categories initially used when the concept was introduced in West Bengal. The mandatory nine-month age gap between siblings is one of the many categories of logical discrepancies that the Indian electors had to navigate to get into the voter lists during the latest and third Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

In May 2026, the Supreme Court of India upheld the legitimacy of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and held it to be in consonance with the Representation of the People Act, noting that the Election Commission has a constitutional obligation to conduct free and fair elections.

Overseen by the Election Commission, tens of millions of dead and duplicate names were removed. In this process, many cases surfaced of genuine voters being deleted. Foreign intelligence agencies were quick to grab the opportunity to initiate a ruckus, with the veiled motive of igniting a student protest, like in Bangladesh and Nepal, that led to a violent regime change in those countries. The hidden objective was to destabilize the country through violence and intimidating Constitutional functionaries, which unfortunately saw opposition political parties becoming enthusiastic partners. The result was absolute mayhem and chaos in New Delhi, as hordes of hired motley crowds, especially from Kerala and West Bengal, flooded the capital city.

When Chief Justice of India Surya Kant compared unemployed youth to “cockroaches” during a May 15 hearing, the internet did not criticize, but it mobilised quickly. Within 24 hours, a 30-year-old claiming to be a student in the United States had turned that slur into a movement using the tongue-in-cheek slogan “Secular, Socialist, Democratic, and Lazy.”

The source of funding for these agitators remained absolutely secret, but citizens were amazed at the funds being lavished on rioters for air travel, food from 5-star hotels and expensive restaurants, stays in posh hotels, and constant threats of dislodging Constitutional functionaries, being openly aired.

American singer Mary Millben was one of the early public figures to point out that the CJP and its leadership may be receiving financial backing from anonymous overseas donors and special interest groups aiming to destabilize India and bring about a regime change. Soon, questions were being aired as to who is funding the CJP? Why were Muslim NRIs offering weekly money and logistics for street mobilization in India?

The Police forces were maintaining utmost restraint and patience, as the paid hordes were rampaging the streets around Jantar Mantar. Hundreds of small shopkeepers, hawkers, taxi and Uber drivers, employees, and tourists were severely affected, as the paid hordes were going berserk, damaging public property, instigated by some opposition leaders, who were also inciting the mobs to attack the Police. One leading political family leader was caught on camera groping and molesting a woman police officer on duty! Others were kicking and obstructing the police officers, who were trying to maintain peace and law and order. The rioters were urinating, defecating, and littering on the streets, without an iota of decency and civic sense. A few rioters were arrested and produced before the courts. The question now arises as to why the courts are taking a very narrow view of the agitations?

Legal experts and many civil society organizations argue that the courts are taking a narrow and lenient view of the actions of the rioters, by routinely and mechanically recognizing the constitutional right to agitate under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (the right to assemble peacefully and without arms) of the Constitution of India. Though the Supreme Court of India has affirmed that while peaceful protest is a fundamental right, it does not give people the right to indefinitely block public roads, disrupt traffic, or create public disorder. In Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar (1962), it drew the line that matters most: a peaceful demonstration is protected, and a violent one is not.

On the economics of the agitation, Delhi traders have estimated total business losses of Rs.3,000 crores due to the October agitations and protests organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). According to the Chamber of Trade and Industry (CTI), total losses reached Rs.3,000 crores, broken down into Rs.2,000 crores from initial protests up to October 10 and an additional Rs.1,000 crores between October 13 and 16. Retail trade bore the brunt of the impact, suffering an estimated Rs.1,800 crores in losses, while wholesale markets saw nearly a 30% drop in business. Various trader associations and legal petitions noted that key commercial areas are incurring daily losses of Rs.200 crores to Rs.250 crores (with specific hubs like Khan Market alone logging losses of Rs.5 to Rs.7 crore a day). Connaught Place traders reported single-day losses between Rs.150 crores and Rs.200 crores on October 10.

Over 700 markets across Delhi—including major commercial and festive hubs such as Chandni Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Connaught Place, Karol Bagh, Gandhi Nagar, Janpath, and Palika Bazar—have been affected by barricades, closures, and low customer footfall, fearing sudden violence by the agitators.

Trade bodies warn that if disruptions and protests persist through the peak Diwali shopping and wedding season, total losses could surge to Rs.10,000 crores. Can the courts ignore such colossal economic losses, loss of tax revenues, and the selection of major Hindu festival dates for conducting agitations?

In the United States, rules prohibiting agitations, protests, or demonstrations in shopping districts depend entirely on whether the property is public or privately owned. Under Federal law, nobody has a US Constitutional right to protest or picket inside privately owned shopping malls or retail plazas. The US Supreme Court ruled in Hudgens v. NLRB that because shopping centers are private property, their owners are not “state actors” and can legally ban or restrict expressive activities. However, the rules vary drastically depending on the state, because state constitutions can grant broader free speech rights than the Federal government.

India also needs to enact similar laws to regulate agitations, dharnas and satyagrahas, to protect trade and industry, which is the economic lifeline and the source of livelihood for lakhs, apart from being a major source of tax revenue. Courts also need to take a 360-degree view of the disruption caused by motivated agitations. The source of funding for expensive agitations needs to be disclosed in advance to the Police, so that appropriate safeguards can be taken to identify the funders.

“Demonstrations… which create public disturbances or operate as nuisances or create or manifestly threaten some tangible public or private mischief are not covered by protection under Article 19(1).”
— Justice Ashok Bhushan, clarifying that the moment a protest turns to stone-throwing or arson, it completely loses its constitutional immunity.

Note:
1. Text in Blue points to additional data on the topic.
2. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of PGurus.

For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.