Current Affairs · · GS2 · Polity

Preventive orders and the right to assemble: what courts have said

A Hindu opinion piece argues that preventive orders under Section 163 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 144 of the CrPC, are used too routinely against protests. It draws on Supreme Court rulings that require restrictions to be specific, proportionate and reviewable. The October 2026 Delhi protests over electoral rolls form the backdrop.

Event date:

REq1
  1. Note1 / 5

    WHY IN NEWS?

    • A Hindu opinion piece examines the right to peaceful assembly after protests in Delhi in October 2026.
    • The protests concerned alleged voter exclusions in the Special Intensive Revision and demands relating to the Chief Election Commissioner. These are allegations, not findings.
    • Police action and preventive orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 drew criticism.
    • The writer argues that exceptional powers have become routine.
  2. Note2 / 5

    WHAT SECTION 163 BNSS DOES

    • It lets a magistrate issue urgent orders to prevent danger to life, health or safety, or a disturbance of public tranquillity.
    • It replaced Section 144 of the CrPC when the BNSS came into force in July 2024.
    • Orders can ban gatherings of people in an area for a limited period.
    • They must be based on an emergency and on facts recorded in writing.
    • The writer cites a study suggesting only a small share of Delhi's prohibitory orders in 2021–22 actually concerned unlawful assemblies.
  3. Note3 / 5

    KEY CONCEPTS

    1. What does Article 19(1)(b) protect?

    It guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of India's sovereignty and integrity, or public order.

    1. What is the proportionality test?

    A restriction must pursue a legitimate aim, be suitable and necessary, and be the least restrictive option. Its benefit must outweigh its harm to the right.

    1. What is a preventive order?

    It acts before any offence, to stop a feared disturbance. Because it limits rights in advance, courts demand strong reasons.

    1. What does international law say?

    The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 37 (2020) says restrictions on peaceful assembly must be lawful, necessary and proportionate, with bans as a last resort.

  4. Note4 / 5

    WHAT THE COURTS HAVE SAID

    The table summarises key rulings.

    CaseYearPrinciple
    Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra1961Upheld Section 144 CrPC as constitutionally valid
    Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police1973The State may regulate, but not deny, the use of public spaces for assembly
    In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident2012Condemned unjustified police action against sleeping protesters
    Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India2020Prohibitory orders must be proportionate, reasoned and open to judicial review
    Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police2020Public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely by protesters

    Together, they protect protest while allowing reasonable limits.

  5. Note5 / 5

    WAY FORWARD

    These are the article's suggestions, not adopted policy.

    • Give specific reasons: Prohibitory orders should rest on recorded, concrete threats.
    • Choose the least restrictive step: Regulate time and place before imposing a ban.
    • Keep sites accessible: Protest venues should be reachable and visible.
    • Police with restraint: Use dialogue first and minimum force.
    • Review quickly: Courts and authorities should promptly review long-running orders.

Sources

Syllabus

PaperSubjectSub-topic
GS2PolityFundamental rights, Indian Constitution, judiciary, criminal law reforms
PrelimsPolityArticle 19(1)(b), Article 19(3), Section 163 BNSS, landmark cases

Topics

Fundamental RightsGovernanceHigher Judiciary (SC and HC)

Practice questions

  1. Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to which provision of the old CrPC?

    1. Section 107
    2. Section 124A
    3. Section 144
    4. Section 151
    Show answer

    Answer: C. Both empower magistrates to issue urgent preventive orders.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

  2. Which Supreme Court case held that prohibitory orders must be proportionate and subject to judicial review?

    1. Babulal Parate (1961)
    2. Anuradha Bhasin (2020)
    3. Amit Sahni (2020)
    4. Maneka Gandhi (1978)
    Show answer

    Answer: B. It arose from restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

  3. Article 19(3) permits reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble in the interests of:

    1. Public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India
    2. Decency and morality only
    3. Friendly relations with foreign states only
    4. Contempt of court only
    Show answer

    Answer: A. The grounds differ for each Article 19 freedom.

    Difficulty: medium · statement

Mains practice

Answer-writing practice on this article. Attempt it first, then open the hints.

  1. GS2 · 250 words

    "Preventive powers meant for emergencies have become tools of routine administration." Examine this claim with reference to restrictions on peaceful assembly in India.

    Show hints
    1. Section 163 BNSS
    2. Article 19(1)(b) and 19(3)
    3. proportionality
    4. Anuradha Bhasin
    5. Himat Lal Shah, General Comment 37.