Thank you, Justice Jamdar

Why can’t citizens protest government decisions and raise slogans? The police are servants of the people, not of top government functionaries. That question and that statement by a single-judge bench of Bombay High Court need to be celebrated. In a way, in setting aside the externment order issued by Mumbai Police against a political activist, by pointing out that in the absence of evidence that the protester posed a danger to public safety or property, the order affected his constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, Justice Madhav J Jamdar was only abiding by the Constitution, in letter and spirit, in their fullest form. After all, the judiciary is the custodian of citizen freedoms and a bulwark against their encroachment if and when the state becomes overreaching. And yet, Justice Jamdar’s order on Thursday is also extraordinary. These are times when amid rising polarisation and receding common ground, powerful governments seek to subdue institutions and dominate spaces. They label and criminalise dissent and crack down on political opponents. In the name of the people, they create an architecture of distrust of the citizen. They use democratic instruments to shrink democratic spaces. In times like these, the Bombay High Court has asked a powerful question and spoken a truth to democracy.

The petitioner in the case, Saeed Ahmad Abdul Wahid Chaudhary, general secretary of the Social Democratic Party of India, had organised or participated in protests, allegedly without police permission, against the BJP-led government’s decisions on the CAA/NRC, Babri Masjid and sealing at the Gyanvapi mosque. These tangled issues have touched off  concerns, especially vis-à-vis the rights of minorities. They call for conversations that make space for citizens to ask difficult questions and express grievances — not for the state to wield extraordinary legal tools against them to send out a chilling message and strip them of their freedom and dignity. When Justice Jamdar asks the police if citizens are being made “slaves of government” by slapping cases for opposing government decisions, he points to the danger that comes from institutions bending to power, smudging lines that separate them and imperilling spaces for checks and balances to kick in.

Justice Jamdar’s order will, hopefully, strike echoes in the system. The state must not challenge it. This is an opportunity to correct course. The relief given to an activist by a judge in Mumbai could become a moment for reflection, an act of redeeming. But even if cynicism triumphs and this is a mere flash in the judicial pan, it did shine very bright. Thank you, Justice Jamdar.

Overall Analysis

The editorial is a strong defence of constitutional freedoms, the right to protest, and judicial independence. It applauds Justice Madhav J. Jamdar of the Bombay High Court for quashing an externment order against a political activist, arguing that the judgment reaffirms the constitutional principle that peaceful dissent cannot be criminalised merely because it challenges the government.

The editorial begins by posing a rhetorical question—“Why can’t citizens protest government decisions and raise slogans?”—to immediately challenge the growing tendency of treating dissent as a threat to public order. It praises the judiciary for fulfilling its constitutional role as the protector of citizens’ rights and highlights that courts act as a check on executive overreach. The language is assertive and value-driven, emphasizing that democracy thrives when institutions remain independent.

The second part explains the background of the case, where an activist was targeted for participating in protests against contentious government policies such as the CAA/NRC, the Babri Masjid verdict, and the Gyanvapi mosque issue. The author argues that such sensitive issues require dialogue and democratic engagement rather than punitive legal action. By quoting Justice Jamdar’s observation that the police are “servants of the people, not of the government,” the editorial underlines the principle that state institutions must remain accountable to the Constitution rather than political authority.

Towards the end, the editorial expresses hope that the judgment will inspire other institutions to uphold constitutional values and discourage arbitrary state action. While acknowledging the possibility that such judgments may remain isolated, it celebrates the decision as a significant affirmation of democracy, judicial courage, and civil liberties. The language throughout is persuasive, emotionally resonant, and rooted in constitutional ideals.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Bulwark – A strong defence or protection against something undesirable.
2. Encroachment – Gradual intrusion or violation of rights or authority.
3. Subdue – To suppress, overpower, or bring under control.
4. Imperilling – Putting something in danger or at serious risk.
5. Redeeming – Making up for past mistakes through positive action or improvement.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that the right to peaceful protest is an essential pillar of democracy and that the judiciary must continue to protect citizens from arbitrary state action. It views Justice Jamdar’s judgment as a reminder that constitutional institutions exist to safeguard individual freedoms, not to reinforce executive power. The piece concludes with optimism that such judicial interventions can restore faith in democratic governance.

Tone: Appreciative, assertive, constitutional, and optimistic.