The Supreme Court on Wednesday emphasised that law enforcement agencies should exercise maximum restraint while dealing with protests, observing that young people involved in such situations should be counselled and pacified instead of being met with an aggressive response. The court made the observations while agreeing to hear a petition seeking action against the organisers of the July 20 'Sansad Chalo' march over allegations that the protest incited violence. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana decided to tag the fresh petition with a similar matter already pending before the court.
Petitioner questions accountability of protest organisers
The plea was filed by retired Air Force officer Maneesh Kumar Solanki. Appearing on his behalf, advocate Rizwan Ahmed argued that nearly two weeks had passed since the protest, but no accountability had been fixed on those who allegedly organised the march. Addressing the Bench, the lawyer said, "Fifteen days have passed. What about the accountability of the organisers? They are going from channel to channel giving provocative statements and refusing to douse the fire." He further argued that governments should not create a precedent by appearing to yield before protesters, referring to a recent law and order situation in Rajasthan.
Lawyer warns against setting a precedent
The counsel submitted that excessive accommodation of protesters could encourage similar incidents elsewhere. Citing hypothetical examples, he questioned whether governments would continue adopting a conciliatory approach if students in other states resorted to violence during demonstrations. "One young man has died. If the government bends backwards in a matter concerning the national capital, will it not set a precedent in Rajasthan? There also the government will bend backwards to accommodate students. Tomorrow, if degree college students in Lucknow have some demand and start pelting stones at buses, will the government in Uttar Pradesh also bend backwards?" he argued.
He also maintained that people allegedly involved in stone-pelting should not escape legal consequences merely because authorities were under public pressure. "This is a very dangerous precedent. Three years back, the farmers were at the Singhu border. Tomorrow, Generation Alpha, Beta, Delta will come," he submitted.
'Youngsters need counselling, not aggressive policing'
Responding to the submissions, Chief Justice Surya Kant said that even if some "misguided elements" engage in violence such as stone-pelting, the broader objective should be to counsel young protesters and prevent the situation from deteriorating. "They need advice and counselling. Any aggressive approach from the side of the mighty State may socially aggravate the situation and precipitate further violence. That needs to be avoided," the Chief Justice observed. The bench underlined that authorities must carefully balance law enforcement with efforts to ensure that protests do not spiral into larger confrontations.
The most powerful tool is listening: CJI
The Chief Justice further observed that the immediate priority during such situations should be maintaining peace while ensuring that police exercise considerable restraint. "What is important is to promote a peaceful march. If some incident takes place, the police also need to exercise a great deal of restraint to ensure that the situation does not go out of hand. Wherever such incidents take place, we need to deal with them very carefully," he said. The CJI added that dialogue often proves more effective than force when dealing with young protesters.
"We need to tread carefully, so that these youngsters do not indulge in violence. The better course is to counsel them and pacify them. The most powerful tool is listening. Listen to them and understand why they are shouting. "But let us leave it to the wisdom of the law-enforcement agencies. They know better than you, and they know better than us, how to deal with this kind of situation," he remarked.
Concerns raised over Parliament security
During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel also flagged concerns over security during the July 20 march, arguing that Parliament is the "temple of democracy" and questioning the potential risks if protesters had managed to breach security. "What if they had opened fire? They were not marching on a national highway. They were not marching on a railway line. They were marching towards the temple of democracy. Everyone must be held accountable," the lawyer argued.
Also Read:
Complaint against minor girl who abused PM Modi at CJP protest revoked, family hasn't returned home
