The ban on protests at Dharna Chowk neither aligns with principles of natural justice, nor with democratic norms, nor with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.
Published Jun 19, 2025 | 12:00 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 19, 2025 | 12:00 PM
A protest at Dharna Chowk in Hyderabad. (X)
Synopsis: A restrictive order was issued by the Hyderabad Police concerning a public protest planned at Dharna Chowk, a designated space for public demonstrations, citing a threat to public order. Issuing such irrational orders is a reflection of authoritarian overreach and arrogance.
Is the government greater, or the people? A government that runs on taxes paid by the people, a government that can stay in power only for five years if elected by the people’s vote — is that government, and its bureaucratic machinery, forgetting that it is only by the grace of the people that they hold power?
The terms “government employee” or “government official” may be recent, but earlier, they were called public servants. So, can these servants now place the very people responsible for their existence on the chopping block? Should people have to ask the same government for permission to express their opinion or protest against one of its policies?
Isn’t it said that in a modern democratic society, sovereignty lies with the people — that the people elect their rulers? Then how is the government acquiring excessive powers to suppress people and crush their rights under an iron heel?
Have we come to this state because the people forgot that the price of democracy is their eternal vigilance? Is the rogue elephant of the state running amok because the mahout — the people — have forgotten to rein it in?
For the past few days, many such questions have been bothering me. Ideas about the sovereignty of the people, citizens’ rights, and the constitutional duties of democratic governments — ideas we studied in political science textbooks some decades ago — are flooding back to memory. The reason? A restrictive order was issued by the great Hyderabad Police concerning a public protest planned at Dharna Chowk.
Dharna Chowk is a designated space for public demonstrations. It is a space acknowledged and allocated by the government itself. Earlier, it used to be adjacent to or opposite the Secretariat gates. Over time, successive governments in the undivided Andhra Pradesh gradually pushed it away, eventually relocating it near Indira Park.
When the first government of Telangana tried to shift it another 10 km away and shut it down entirely, the high court struck it down, forcing its restoration. Ironically, the very party that once sought to shut down the democratic space now finds itself having to stage protests there.
The current ruling party, which, while in Opposition, condemned the previous government’s stance toward Dharna Chowk, made grand declarations that it would restore Dharna Chowk and revive democracy. However, even after 18 months in power, the people still do not enjoy full rights or opportunities to protest at Dharna Chowk.
Anyone — individuals, organisations, or political parties — wanting to protest at Dharna Chowk must apply for police permission. Since the location falls under the Central Zone, Gandhinagar Division, and Domalguda Police Station of the Hyderabad Police Commissionerate, the Deputy Commissioner of Police issues orders instructing these offices to take appropriate action.
They can either grant or deny permission. If granted, the permission order usually includes standard conditions, and in some cases, additional conditions specific to certain individuals, organisations, or parties.
First of all, regardless of the period requested by the applicants, the police determine the start and end time of the protest. They also decide how many people may attend. Protesters must strictly adhere to the designated time and attendance limits.
The police declare that this permission is granted under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — formerly Section 144 of the CrPC — under which prohibitory orders have already been in place since 11 November 2024. Furthermore, if there is any threat to law and order, peace, tranquillity, or communal harmony anywhere in the city, this permission may be instantly revoked without notice.
Responsibility for ensuring that no individual or group moves from the protest site toward the Telangana State Legislative Assembly or the Dr BR Ambedkar Secretariat is placed squarely on the organisers. The permission is restricted to Dharna Chowk only.
Any deviation not only nullifies the permission but also exposes organisers to legal action. Organisers are warned that they would be held accountable for any damage caused to public or private property, citing a Supreme Court judgement as authority.
Organisers are also responsible for ensuring that traffic movement is not disrupted. They must apply to and obtain permission from the local traffic police for traffic arrangements.
Sky lanterns, drones, and fireworks are explicitly prohibited. Loud DJs and other noise-polluting elements are banned. Protesters’ vehicles must be parked in areas arranged by the organisers and reported to the traffic police. Organisers must maintain contact with the local police Station House Officer (SHO) and provide regular updates.
Protesters must not move from the protest site to any other location and must disperse peacefully once the event is over. Organisers must record the entire event — speeches, slogans, locations — on video and submit the footage to the local police station.
The 16 points — suggestions, warnings, instructions, and restrictions — conclude with a warning that violation of any of them will make the organisers liable for prosecution under the Hyderabad City Police Act of 1348 Fasli and other laws.
Can a government that issues such elaborate, written restrictions be called even a minimally democratic government? These instructions neither align with principles of natural justice, nor with democratic norms, nor with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.
These orders hide behind an outdated feudal-era law — the Hyderabad City Police Act of 1348 Fasli (1938-39), enacted by the Nizam’s government to thwart the formation of the state Congress and suppress people’s movements. It granted excessive powers to the police over the people.
Even after nine decades, despite the fall of monarchy, the end of military rule, the first elected government in Hyderabad State, the formation of Andhra Pradesh, multiple governments, the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, the creation of Telangana, and eleven years since its formation — we are still governed by a law from the era of the seventh Nizam. Perhaps, we are living under the ninth Nizam?
Putting that aside, some aspects of the 16-point order deserve scrutiny. The fundamental right of protest is not respected. That’s why the orders impose conditions on the duration and number of participants.
However, neither the police nor the government has the authority to fix the time or limit the number of protesters. Their responsibility is limited to ensuring that protests do not disrupt law and order or traffic. And even the term “law and order” cannot be defined arbitrarily by the police.
Peaceful protests, speeches, slogans, and expressions of opinion do not threaten public order. Gandhi’s leadership in the freedom movement demonstrated that even civil disobedience, burning of foreign clothes, breaking unjust laws, and satyagraha were not threats to public order at all.
BNSS Section 163 (formerly CrPC 144) should be invoked only in cases of emergency. However, according to the order itself, the prohibitory orders have been in force continuously for seven months.
In the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh, these prohibitory orders used to be renewed every month or three months on a regular basis. Civil libertarian KG Kannabiran used to say that Section 144 — which was meant for emergencies — has been perpetually in effect in Hyderabad since 1969.
This clearly shows that its purpose has shifted from emergency response to granting unchecked power to the police.
Another absurdity: If anywhere in the city — 20 or 30 km away — any incident occurs that, in the police’s opinion, disturbs public order or harmony, the protest permission at Dharna Chowk is revoked!
Does this make any logical or moral sense? Should protestors at one place be punished for incidents caused by mobs elsewhere? Should local protesters pay the price for the police’s inability to prevent incidents elsewhere?
And the most bizarre clause: protest organisers must ensure that “any person/mob” moves toward the Assembly or the Secretariat. One could understand the restriction on mobs (or groups of people), but even individuals?
Can’t a single person go to the Assembly or Secretariat from Dharna Chowk for personal or official work? Can’t someone take that road to reach their own home?
Issuing such irrational orders is a reflection of authoritarian overreach and arrogance.
Of all the restrictions, only those related to traffic and noise pollution make some sense — and even then, responsibility lies not just with organisers but with the relevant authorities as well.
Ironically, far more disruptive events continue all over the city — causing massive traffic jams and producing deafening noise that harms children and heart patients — yet no one, particularly police, raises objections.
However, if a few citizens sit quietly at the side of a road in a government-designated space, raising slogans or giving speeches about a social issue, the government and police find it unacceptable. They impose one draconian condition after another.
A Revanth Reddy, both as Pradesh Congress Committee (PCC) President and the chief minister, repeatedly promised as his “seventh guarantee” democratic restoration and revival of Dharna Chowk, but nothing of the sort has happened.
Even the few signs of improvement have been buried under these thorny restrictions, as these orders painfully demonstrate.
So, once again: Why are the rulers so afraid of the people’s protests?
(The writer is the editor of an independent, small Telugu monthly journal of society and political economy, running for the past 23 years. Views are personal. Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
