Article 19 (1)(b) provides that every citizen has the right to assemble peaceably without arms. It includes the right to hold public meetings, demonstrations and take out processions. 

• This freedom can be exercised only on public land and the assembly must be peaceful and unarmed. 
• This provision does not protect violent, disorderly, riotous assemblies, or one that causes breach of public peace or one that involves arms. 
• This right does not include the right to strike. 

Reasonable Restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Assembly under Article 19(3)

Article 19(3) provides for reasonable restrictions on the exercise of right of assembly on two grounds, namely, 

• Sovereignty and integrity of India and 
• Public order including the maintenance of traffic in the area concerned. 

Legal Provisions and Restrictions on Unlawful Assemblies under Section 144 and Section 141

Right to Protest in Public Places

• Definition: A protest represents an individual or a collective’s expression of disagreement or opposition towards government actions, inactions, or violations of rights. It serves as a means of showcasing freedom or the absence of it through artistic expression, spoken word, and cultural practices.
• Constitutional provisions: Article 19 (1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. It includes Right to demonstration or picketing but not right to strike. Similarly, Article 19(1)(b) assures citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. 

Relevant Supreme Court Judgement

Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary, Union of India & Ors. 2011: 

• The Supreme Court indicated in this case that individuals possess a fundamental right to assemble and engage in peaceful protest, which cannot be undermined by arbitrary actions taken by the executive or legislative branches.

 Amit Sahni vs Commissioner of Police & Ors., 2020

• Background: In December 2019, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was enacted, leading to protests across various regions of the country. One such demonstration resulted in the obstruction of the Shaheen Bagh area in Delhi. On January 14, 2020, a writ petition was submitted to the High Court of Delhi against these protests. The petition argued that public roads should not be allowed to be obstructed in such a manner. The High Court instructed the relevant authorities to take appropriate measures, but no specific order or direction was issued by the court. Consequently, the situation remained unchanged. 
• Case: Given that the circumstances did not improve, advocate Amit Sahni (the appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s ruling, asking for the removal of the protest site. In the meantime, intervention applications were submitted by those who supported the protestors. The Supreme Court designated two interlocutors to facilitate discussions with the protestors; however, their attempts were unfruitful. Later, due to the outbreak of Coronavirus, the protest site was cleared. Nonetheless, the Court opted to proceed with the appeal due to the broader implications of the case and the need for clarity.
•  Verdict: A three-judge bench delivered a ruling on the conflict between the Right to protest and the Right to mobility, which: 

• Affirmed the Right to protest: The judgement supported the right to peacefully demonstrate against a law while stating plainly that public roads and spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely. The Supreme Court of India concluded that public protests and demonstrations expressing dissent should only be staged in designated areas. 
• Established reasonable restrictions: In a democracy, the rights to free speech and peaceful protest are indeed valued but are subject to reasonable limitations. 
• Highlighted balancing rights: Fundamental rights do not function independently. The rights of the protestor must be weighed against the rights of the commuter.
• Commented on social media: The court remarked on the contradictory nature of technology and the internet, stating that they “both empower digitally driven movements and simultaneously contribute to their apparent vulnerabilities.” It noted that technology has allowed movements to grow rapidly and circumvent censorship, but social media platforms are often filled with risks that can foster highly polarized environments, “which frequently witness parallel discussions lacking any clear productive outcome.” The Court noted that both scenarios were present in Shaheen Bagh, which began as a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act, gained traction in various cities to evolve into a solidarity movement for women and their causes, but also brought about its own challenges and inconvenienced commuters.

Freedom of Association

Article 19 (1)(c) of the constitution provides that all citizens have the right to form associations or unions or cooperative societies (added by 97th Amendment 2011). It includes the right to form political parties, companies, partnership firms, societies, clubs, organisations, trade unions or any body of persons. 

• • Right to continue: It not only includes the right to start an association or union but also to continue with the association or union as such. 
  • Example: Chambers of Commerce and Industry, All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) etc.
  • Includes negative right: It also covers the negative right of not to form or join an association or union. 
  • No right to Recognition: The right to obtain recognition of the association is not a fundamental right.
• No right to strike: The Supreme Court has held that the trade unions have no guaranteed right to effective bargaining or right to strike or right to declare a lockout.

Reasonable Restrictions

The state can impose reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of association on the grounds mentioned in the article 19 (4). These grounds to impose reasonable restrictions are – Sovereignty and integrity of India, Public order and Morality.

Relevant Supreme Court Judgement

T.K. Rangarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2003: In this case the Supreme Court held that government officials don’t have the statutory or the fundamental right to strike.