The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental aspect of democratic expression, and cannot be curtailed merely because of unrelated past disturbances. In a significant ruling under Article 226, the Court granted permission for a registered educational foundation to hold a peaceful demonstration, setting clear boundaries on state discretion in regulating assembly rights.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a registered society named Neyu For Change Educational and Welfare Foundation, sought permission to conduct a peaceful protest outside the office of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) in Indore. The protest was intended to draw attention to alleged irregularities in recruitment processes and was planned to be unarmed, non-disruptive, and confined to a specified timeframe.
Procedural History
- 19 January 2026: Petitioner submitted an application for protest permission to Respondent No. 3 (District Magistrate, Indore)
- 21 January 2026: Permission denied on grounds of prior student-led protests causing public disturbance
- 23 January 2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the denial as arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights
- 24 January 2026: Hearing conducted; petitioner narrowed request to three days (24 - 27 January 2026)
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to grant permission for the protest, subject to reasonable conditions, and to recognize the constitutional guarantee of peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(a).
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State can deny permission for a peaceful protest based solely on unrelated past disturbances caused by different groups, without demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of imminent law and order breach by the petitioner.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Kishan Mohan v. State of Haryana and State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad to argue that peaceful protest is a core component of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). It was emphasized that the petitioner had categorically assured no arms, no noise violations, no obstruction of public movement, and no damage to property. The denial was argued to be arbitrary, disproportionate, and based on guilt by association.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the prior protest by students had led to law and order issues, and that granting permission could trigger similar unrest. It cited State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babu Ram to assert that administrative discretion in maintaining public order must be respected. The State argued that the proximity of the protest to scheduled interviews on 27 - 28 January 2026 justified refusal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s reliance on past incidents involving unrelated actors. It held that each protest must be assessed on its own merits, and that the mere possibility of disturbance cannot override constitutional rights. The Court emphasized that the burden lies on the State to demonstrate a real and imminent threat, not to presume misconduct based on historical precedent.
"The fact that some students caused disturbance earlier cannot be a ground to deny permission to a registered society which has categorically undertaken to conduct a peaceful protest without any arms or disruption."
The Court further noted that the petitioner had voluntarily reduced the duration of the protest and offered to submit a memorandum on 27 January, thereby minimizing interference with official functions. The Court found no material to support the claim that the petitioner’s proposed activity posed a threat to public order. It held that administrative denial without concrete evidence of likely breach violates the doctrine of proportionality.
The Court also affirmed that police presence is not a condition for permitting protest, but a duty of the State to protect lawful assembly. The conditions imposed were framed to balance rights with responsibilities, ensuring accountability without suppression.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that the right to peaceful protest cannot be denied on speculative grounds or past conduct of unrelated groups. Permission was granted for the protest from 24 to 27 January 2026, subject to seven binding conditions ensuring order and accountability.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Past Disturbances Cannot Justify Future Denials
- Practitioners must challenge denials of protest permits that rely on unrelated prior incidents
- The State must produce specific, current evidence of likely breach - not general apprehension
- Registered societies and NGOs now have stronger grounds to seek judicial redress against arbitrary denials
Conditions Must Be Proportionate and Specific
- Any conditions imposed must be narrowly tailored to prevent actual harm, not to suppress dissent
- Blanket restrictions (e.g., banning loudspeakers entirely) are impermissible; only excessive noise is prohibited
- Police deployment is a duty, not a precondition for permission
Judicial Scrutiny of Administrative Discretion Is Heightened
- Courts will apply strict scrutiny when fundamental rights are curtailed under the guise of public order
- Administrative orders lacking reasoned, fact-based justification will be set aside under Article 226
- Petitioners should always document assurances of peaceful conduct and submit them with applications
