Police Use of Force in Protests: Constitutional Limits and Judicial Oversight

Hindustan Times - India · 24 Jul 2026 · 2 min read
Prelims · Polity Mains · GS2 Polity and constitution High relevance

Recent police actions during CJP protests in Delhi highlight the lack of statutory guidelines on use of force, relying instead on judicial interpretations of constitutional principles like necessity and proportionality.

Key points

Constitutional Framework: Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) guarantee freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, but Articles 19(2) and 19(3) allow reasonable restrictions for public order, creating the legal basis for police intervention.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS): Sections 148-151 empower police to disperse unlawful assemblies but lack specific guidelines on degree of force, leaving interpretation to courts and state police manuals.

Judicial Precedents: In Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012), the Supreme Court established the 'necessity and proportionality' test for police action, condemning excessive force as violating Article 21's right to life and liberty.

Accountability Gap: The absence of a uniform national framework results in inconsistent practices across states, with accountability often determined post-facto through judicial or departmental proceedings.

Protest Rights vs Public Order: Courts in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018) and Amit Sahni (2020) cases balanced protest rights with other citizens' rights, prohibiting indefinite road blockades while protecting peaceful dissent.

[GS2-Governance] The lack of standardized crowd control protocols reflects broader challenges in police reforms and implementation of Supreme Court directives like Prakash Singh (2006) on police autonomy.

[GS3-Security] Unregulated use of force risks escalating violence during protests, undermining both civil liberties and effective law enforcement, requiring clear operational guidelines.

Way Forward: India should enact a national Police Use of Force Act codifying graduated response protocols, mandate body-worn cameras for accountability, and establish independent oversight mechanisms for protest-related police actions.

Key terms

Article 19(1)(b)

Constitutional provision protecting the right to assemble peacefully without arms, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(3) for sovereignty, security and public order. Its judicial interpretation balances democratic dissent with state's duty to maintain order.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)

The 2023 law replacing CrPC, containing provisions (Sections 148-151) on dispersing unlawful assemblies. Its lack of force standardization contrasts with modern policing norms, creating implementation challenges across states.

Doctrine of Proportionality

Constitutional principle requiring state actions to be proportionate to their objectives, developed through cases like Ramlila Maidan. It prevents excessive force during protests by mandating minimal necessary intervention.

Unlawful Assembly

Defined under Section 141 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as a gathering of five or more persons with common object to commit violence or intimidation. Police powers to disperse such assemblies derive from BNSS but lack clear force parameters.