Back
Detention of During CEC Protest Draws NLSIU Alumni Rebuke
More than 500 alumni of the have publicly condemned what they describe as "" police action against peaceful protesters on , during demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The statement also singles out the detention and physical manhandling of , an NLSIU alumnus, and calls for an into the use of excessive force, , and the alleged lack of in official and police responses.
According to the statement, more than 10,000 people were reportedly detained across the country during the protests. The alumni expressed alarm over the use of force against lawyers peacefully protesting near the and instances of lawyers being prevented from accessing detention centres. The statement insists that the and the are guaranteed under , subject only to "" imposed in the .
The Context: Nationwide Protests Against the CEC
The protests on were directed at Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, although the broader concerns raised by the alumni relate to the manner in which the protest was handled rather than the merits of the protest itself. The statement notes that large numbers of people were detained across the country, raising questions about whether the police response was calibrated to maintain or whether it crossed into arbitrary action. For the legal community, the detention of lawyers was particularly significant, because it implicated not only the but also the professional capacity of advocates to perform their duties.
The alumni emphasised that peaceful protest is not merely a discretionary privilege tolerated by the State but a . Under , citizens are guaranteed the , the , and the . These rights are subject to , but the statement insists that the State cannot arbitrarily detain those exercising these rights, even during an . The phrase "even during an " is deliberate; it signals the alumni's view that constitutional protections cannot be dispensed with merely because a situation is tense or politically sensitive.
The Detention of
At the centre of the controversy is the treatment of , a 2006 batch alumnus of NLSIU. The statement says that Farasat was detained while rushing to prevent the of a peaceful protestor. This detail is important. It suggests that Farasat was not a passive bystander but was acting as a lawyer in furtherance of a citizen's and access to legal aid. His detention and physical manhandling, the alumni argue, represent a breakdown of the protection that lawyers are supposed to afford to citizens.
The statement reads:
"We are deeply disturbed by the use of force against lawyers peacefully protesting near the Supreme Court area and instances of lawyers being prevented from accessing detention centres. We are particularly perturbed by the detention and physical manhandling of Mr Shadan Farasat, Senior Advocate and an alumnus of NLSIU (Batch of 2006). What is particularly distressing about his detention is that he was detained while rushing to prevent the
of a peaceful protestor."
The statement then connects Farasat's case to the wider risk to the legal system:
"We emphasize that the legal framework of this country will break down if lawyers are prevented from aiding citizens in the exercise of their
. At the same time, we are concerned that if a Senior Advocate can be subject to
, what hope from the law can an ordinary citizen have?"
These words reflect a concern that reaches beyond the facts of any single incident. If lawyers cannot safely approach the police, cannot access detention centres, and cannot intervene when they see an unlawful arrest, the protective function of the legal profession is severely undermined.
Constitutional Guarantees and
The statement grounds its objections in two constitutional provisions. First, Article 19(1), which protects the and to associate with others in protest. The statement acknowledges that these rights are not absolute and may be subjected to "" in the . However, it argues that the restrictions must themselves be constitutional and proportional. Mass detentions of peaceful protesters, without more, cannot be justified as a reasonable restriction if the purpose is simply to suppress dissent.
Second, the statement invokes , which protects . It argues that the and is a under . This is consistent with the constitutional vision that a person detained by the State must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge the detention. If lawyers are prevented from reaching those in custody, that opportunity is empty. The alumni therefore describe it as the obligation of lawyers to assist those facing detention. This is not described as a matter of professional courtesy but as a necessary implication of the constitutional and the .
A Question of
A central theme of the statement is
. The alumni call for an
to investigate
"instances of
against civilians and lawyers,
, and the general lack of
in official and police action in handling the protests."
The word "
" is important in constitutional law. Even where the State has the power to restrict
, the restrictions must not exceed what is necessary to protect
. If less intrusive means were available, the use of mass detention and physical force against lawyers may be constitutionally suspect.
The statement also draws attention to the practical reality that the legal system depends on lawyers who are willing and able to act. When a senior advocate is detained while attempting to protect a peaceful protestor, the message to the broader legal profession is chilling. The alumni argue that if such treatment is meted out to a senior member of the Bar, ordinary citizens cannot be expected to have confidence in the law.
Implications for Legal Practice and the Justice System
The events, as described in the statement, have implications beyond the immediate protests. For lawyers who practise in the areas of criminal law, constitutional law, and civil rights, the statement highlights the vulnerability of advocates in moments of civil unrest. It also underscores the need for clear protocols governing police interaction with lawyers at protest sites. Lawyers are not merely private professionals; they perform a public function. When they are blocked from accessing detention centres, the justice system fails at its earliest stage.
The statement's demand for an is likely to resonate with members of the legal profession who are concerned about the erosion of in the name of maintaining order. An inquiry, if conducted, would need to examine not only individual incidents involving lawyers but also the broader pattern of detentions and the decision-making process of the police authorities. It would also need to consider whether the use of force was necessary and proportionate, and whether access to was improperly denied.
Conclusion
The NLSIU alumni have issued a sharp reminder that the is a fundamental constitutional right and that the is essential to its protection. By foregrounding the detention of , the statement personalises a broader systemic concern: if the State can treat a senior lawyer this way, it can treat any citizen far worse.
The call for an is both a demand for accountability and an assertion of the constitutional order. Whatever the outcome of that inquiry, the statement has already made its point: peaceful protest must not be met with , and lawyers must not be punished for doing their job.
