Proportionality in Public Order: The Judiciary on Restrictions vs. Fundamental Rights
GS2
The Supreme Court has mandated that state-imposed restrictions during public protests must be proportionate, cautioning against blanket shutdowns of essential transit services that infringe upon public movement.
The Supreme Court’s recent intervention regarding the suspension of metro and rail services in the national capital underscores a vital constitutional tension: the balance between maintaining public order and upholding the fundamental right to peaceful protest and freedom of movement. As the administration frequently employs sweeping restrictions to prevent unauthorized gatherings, the judiciary has re-affirmed that regulatory measures must strictly adhere to the doctrine of proportionality.
The Court’s directive clarifies that while the State possesses the authority to regulate public spaces under existing security mandates, such powers cannot be exercised in a vacuum. A 'total prohibition' or a blanket shutdown of critical infrastructure—like mass transit systems—fails the test of reasonableness. For an administrative action to be constitutional, it must be the 'least restrictive measure' necessary to address a specific security threat. By indiscriminately paralyzing public transport, the authorities risk causing undue hardship to the citizenry, effectively penalizing the general public for the actions of a few or the potential for unrest.
Continue reading — free with login
JeetoBharat publishes daily UPSC current affairs mapped to the Mains syllabus. Log in to read full articles.
Log in to read full articleNo credit card required. Free registered users get unlimited access.
This article was curated using AI. While we strive for accuracy, please verify critical facts from official sources.