As Punjab Sees Crackdown on Protesters, Bombay High Court Upholds Citizens’ Right to Dissent

Punjab News Express

Jul 16, 2026 - 06:50

Jul 16, 2026 - 06:51

0 19

As Punjab Sees Crackdown on Protesters, Bombay High Court Upholds Citizens’ Right to Dissent

By Sanjeev Sirohi advocate

CHANDIGARH: While Punjab Police has been facing criticism for resorting to lathi-charge, detentions and registration of criminal cases against protesting government employees, farmers and unemployed youth, the Bombay High Court has delivered a significant judgment warning against the misuse of police powers to curb democratic dissent.

In a landmark ruling, the High Court quashed an externment order issued against political activist Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, holding that merely organizing protests against government policies cannot be treated as a threat to public order or become a ground for restricting a citizen's fundamental rights.

The judgment assumes significance at a time when protests by farmers, contractual employees, unemployed youth and other groups have frequently led to police action in several states, including Punjab. The court emphasized that citizens have a constitutional right to express dissent and that police authorities cannot use extraordinary powers to silence criticism of governments.

Justice Madhav J. Jamdar of the Bombay High Court set aside orders issued by the Mumbai Police and later upheld by the Konkan Divisional Commissioner, which had externed Chaudhary, the State General Secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), from Mumbai.

The police had relied on several FIRs registered against Chaudhary, most of them related to organizing protests, morchas and dharnas against decisions of the BJP-led Central government. Authorities argued that the demonstrations were held without police permission and therefore justified action under the Maharashtra Police Act.

However, the High Court found no evidence that Chaudhary's activities had caused alarm, danger or harm to any person or property—conditions required under law to justify an externment order.

The court noted that the allegations against the activist were primarily related to organizing protests and raising slogans against government policies. Such actions, the court held, could not be equated with criminal conduct warranting the severe step of externment.

In strong observations during the hearing, Justice Jamdar reminded law enforcement agencies that police officers are public servants accountable to citizens and not political functionaries serving governments of the day.

The court questioned whether similar action would be taken against participants in numerous protests that have taken place across the country on issues ranging from examination controversies to public policy decisions.

The High Court also expressed concern that criminal cases are sometimes used selectively against political opponents and activists. During the proceedings, the court remarked that citizens cannot be treated as "slaves of the government" and that democratic systems allow people to question and oppose government decisions.

Examining Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, the court observed that externment is an extraordinary measure that deprives a person of the fundamental right to move freely and therefore must be exercised only in exceptional circumstances supported by concrete evidence.

Justice Jamdar held that the authorities had failed to produce any material showing that Chaudhary's activities posed a genuine threat to public order. As a result, the "subjective satisfaction" recorded by police authorities was legally unsustainable and stood vitiated.

The judgment further underlined that Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution guarantee freedom of speech, expression and the right to live with dignity. Externing a citizen merely because he opposed government decisions amounted to an infringement of these constitutional protections.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the High Court reiterated that executive powers cannot be used to suppress legitimate expression of opinion, grievances or democratic rights.

The court ultimately quashed both the externment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the appellate order passed by the Divisional Commissioner.

Legal experts believe the ruling sends a strong message to law enforcement agencies across the country that dissent and protest are integral parts of a democratic society. The judgment also serves as a reminder that police powers cannot be invoked to penalize citizens merely for criticizing government policies or participating in peaceful political movements.

The ruling is likely to resonate beyond Maharashtra, particularly in states where protesters frequently face criminal cases and police action for raising demands or opposing government decisions.