DA Editorial Team
When the Chief Justice of India tells the government that it “cannot use a hammer to kill a fly,” the remark deserves to be read carefully. A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, said so on Friday while hearing a challenge to the curbs imposed in Delhi ahead of protests planned for 10 October. According to reports, 57 Metro stations were closed and trains to New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin stations were cancelled. Internet services were also suspended for 24 hours in sensitive areas.
The protests are by the Cockroach Janta Party and opposition parties, who are demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the revision of electoral rolls. The government’s case was put by the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, who argued that the measures were proportionate. He pointed to the violence that followed a march on Parliament by CJP protesters on 20 July, and said that law enforcement needs room for manoeuvre because such situations cannot be predicted.
That concern is not trivial. A state has a duty to protect public order and citizens, and it may prepare for a protest that has turned violent before.
But the bench was right to ask where preparation ends and collective punishment begins. The court noted that commuters from Gurugram, Greater Noida, East Delhi and South Delhi, including students, workers and senior citizens, depend on public transport. Closing Metro stations and cancelling trains does not select the people who intend to break the law. It hits everyone in the city. The bench also said that a Metro closure from 9 pm could not be treated as a regulatory measure, and that the government may regulate train frequency but should not stop services altogether.
Proportionality is a well-established test. Any restriction on a fundamental right, whether movement, assembly or speech, must have a legitimate purpose, a real connection to that purpose and the least intrusive means available. A blanket shutdown of the transport system can scarcely meet the last part. Targeted measures, such as barricades near the protest site, controlled entry at particular stations and prompt action against those who commit violence, would do the job without stopping a city of millions.
The court also asked the Centre to consider designating another location for peaceful protests instead of Jantar Mantar. That is a sensible suggestion. A known, well-equipped site would serve everyone better than a cycle of bans, barricades and last-minute court hearings.
Protesters have duties too. Organisers must keep their gatherings peaceful and discourage violence, and parties that call on people to march should expect to answer for what happens. The right to protest is not a licence to disrupt the city.
The underlying dispute about the electoral rolls will be argued elsewhere. On the question of how the state should respond to dissent, the Supreme Court’s message is plain. Order matters, but so does restraint. A government that is confident in its position should be able to listen to protests without shutting down a capital.