In Delhi, police actions suppressing protests against the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) through broad detentions — extending even to journalists and lawyers — raise critical questions about procedural safeguards and professional immunity.While lawyers and journalists lack explicit statutory immunity against arrest, arbitrary detention during the discharge of professional duties violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, alongside statutory arrest protocols under the CrPC / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.Given the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) petition before the judiciary, what constitutional remedies are available to individuals facing unlawful detention by law enforcement? Furthermore, what factors explain judicial hesitation when directing the registration of FIRs against police officers accused of abuse of power?
— R Valli, Mylapore, Chennai
As far as law and order issues are concerned, successive governments, right from the British era, have followed the same law and procedures. While the Constitution of India guarantees us the right to protest without arms, the reasonable restrictions that can be imposed are many.
Section 144 of the old CrPC (and similar provisions under the new BNSS) can be invoked by an executive order of a district magistrate to ban gatherings of four or more people. The Anna Hazare-led protest at Ramlila Maidan was banned under Section 144; the Supreme Court, while writing a long treatise on peaceful protest, ultimately upheld the law banning crowds. Similarly, regarding the anti-CAA protests at Shaheen Bagh, though peaceful, the Supreme Court held that protests cannot continue indefinitely.
In the case of Jantar Mantar protests, though the apex court apparently guarantees the right to protest, the government has increasingly resorted to large-scale repression going to the extent of stopping trains midway and closing Metro stations thereby penalising non-protesting citizens as well.
Ultimately, no protest will ever be sanctified by the law, protected by courts, or permitted by ruling governments.
Will the conferment of the Nobel Peace Prize on Navi Pillay help revive the rules-based international order, or will it provoke powerful nations, particularly the United States, into further weakening the safeguards designed to hold them accountable and protect vulnerable populations? As ongoing conflicts, such as the violence in Gaza, highlight the limitations of international law and the enforcement struggles of the International Criminal Court (ICC), how can global institutions restore a framework where no sovereign power remains above the law Furthermore, what constructive role can India play in restoring faith in multilateralism and international justice, and could Pillay's recognition exacerbate friction between Washington and international bodies tasked with global accountability?
— K Rajasekaran, Mandaiveli, Chennai
At the Bandung Conference (1955), the ‘Panchsheel’ policy was evolved to resolve conflict between nations. Under Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, India became a leading light for the Non-Aligned Movement ("third-world") countries, offering a new alternative to a bipolar world.
By contrast, the present regime is increasingly steering the country toward a unipolar world led by the US. Abandoning Panchsheel and non-alignment has proven to be a clear disaster. The result is not merely a foreign policy failure; its direct impact is felt by citizens through soaring prices of fuel and domestic gas.
With its present foreign policy, our country can never be a leader for a peaceful path, and it will also lead to domestic disaster.