Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM68305
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-7
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
LAW
SRM SCHOOL OF LAW, SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY KATTANKULATHUR, TAMIL NADU
Peaceful protest is a basic part of Indian democracy, but in practice it is often managed through police orders, barricades and detention. This article studies the 2026 protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which began over alleged irregularities in the NEET medical entrance examination and later widened to the revision of electoral rolls and the Chief Election Commissioner. It looks at how the right to assemble under Article 19(1) sits beside police powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The article argues that India’s main problem is not a lack of law. The problem is weak enforcement of existing limits: wide preventive powers, force used without clear proof of need, slow court responses and no independent check on the police. It ends with practical reforms. Facts are taken from news reports and a rights-group investigation, and many remain contested.
KEYWORDS
The CJP protests show an old problem in a new setting. A young, online-born movement gathered large crowds, the State replied with barricades, force and arrests, and each side blamed the other. The right to protest is not absolute, and the police have a duty to protect people and property. But the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decisions already require that restrictions be reasonable and force proportionate. The weak point is not the rule book; it is what happens when the rules are not followed. Until police conduct is checked by someone outside the police, the right to protest in India will depend on the goodwill of the authorities, and a right that depends on goodwill is a weak one.
Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 227 (India). Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 (India). Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324 (India). Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439 (India). Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884 (India). Madhu Limaye v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, (1970) 3 SCC 746 (India). Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637 (India). Anita Thakur v. Government of Jammu & Kashmir, (2016) 15 SCC 525 (India). Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1 (India).
Publication Date
10/26/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
4
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...