India’s Constitution does not give citizens freedom as a favour from the government. Fundamental rights are constitutional guarantees. Article 14 promises equality before law, while Article 19 protects freedom of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, association and movement, subject to constitutionally permitted reasonable restrictions. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. Article 13 goes even further: laws that violate fundamental rights are, to the extent of that violation, void.
Yet a disturbing question is increasingly being asked in Punjab: are citizens being gradually conditioned to believe that exercising their constitutional rights is itself an offence?
The question cannot be dismissed as political rhetoric. In recent months, Punjab and Chandigarh have witnessed repeated confrontations involving protesters, farmers, workers, students and political or social organisations. In August 2026, police removed farmer protesters from sites including railway tracks and outside the Punjab Assembly Speaker’s residence. In July, a police lathicharge on protesting sanitation workers in Barnala—reported to have involved mainly women—triggered wider protests and demands for accountability.
Most recently, on August 15, Chandigarh Police used tear gas and water cannons when Qaumi Insaaf Morcha supporters attempted to move towards Chandigarh from the Mohali border. The authorities may argue that maintaining public order and protecting sensitive locations required intervention. Protesters, however, have raised questions about whether peaceful dissent is being given adequate space.
This is where the distinction between restriction and suppression becomes crucial. Article 19 does permit reasonable restrictions on speech and peaceful assembly in specified circumstances, including public order and security. But the existence of a restriction does not mean that every restriction is automatically constitutional. The test is whether the restriction is lawful, necessary, proportionate and genuinely connected to the legitimate public interest invoked by the authorities.
A democracy cannot operate on the principle that “the government knows best, therefore the citizen must remain silent.” Governments are elected to administer the state, not to own public opinion.
Punjab has a particularly important democratic tradition of protest. Farmers have historically taken their demands to the streets. Workers have marched for wages and dignity. Students have protested over education. Political parties have demonstrated against governments. Families have campaigned for justice. These activities may sometimes create inconvenience, but inconvenience alone cannot become the definition of unlawful dissent.
The greater danger begins when every protest is viewed through the lens of “law and order.” If a citizen raises a placard, the answer should not automatically be a barricade. If workers demand their rights, the answer should not automatically be police force. If students disagree with the administration, they should not automatically be treated as troublemakers. And if political opponents question the government, criticism should not be confused with disloyalty.
The government has police power; citizens have constitutional power. The Constitution exists precisely to prevent the first from overwhelming the second.
There is also a deeper institutional problem. Fundamental rights become meaningless if citizens have rights on paper but fear exercising them in practice. A right to peaceful assembly means little if people believe that assembling will bring detention, force or criminal cases. Freedom of speech means little if citizens begin censoring themselves because they fear official retaliation. Equality before law means little if people believe that political influence determines how the law is applied.
Punjab must therefore ask whether its institutions are protecting dissent or merely managing dissent.The answer should not be determined by which political party is in power. The same constitutional standard must apply when AAP is in government, when Congress governs, when SAD governs or when BJP holds power. Fundamental rights are not AAP rights, Congress rights, SAD rights or BJP rights. They belong to the citizen.
And this is where the opposition also has a responsibility. Political parties cannot demand freedom for themselves while supporting restrictions when their opponents protest. Civil liberties cannot be selective. Today’s ruling party may use the police against its critics; tomorrow it may become the opposition. The machinery created to silence one political group can eventually be used against another.
Punjab’s government must also remember that police officers are not political party workers. The police are an institution of the State, accountable to the Constitution and law. Their responsibility is to maintain public order while respecting lawful rights—not to protect the political comfort of whichever government happens to be in office.The same principle applies to protest organisations. A constitutional right to peaceful assembly does not provide a licence for violence, destruction of property, intimidation or obstruction that unlawfully harms others. Protesters must remain peaceful, and authorities must respond proportionately. Both sides have responsibilities; neither side gets a constitutional free pass.
But the burden on the State is greater because the State possesses coercive power.A citizen has a voice. The government has police, administrative authority, criminal law and the machinery of the State. That imbalance is exactly why constitutional safeguards matter.Punjab therefore needs a serious public conversation about civil liberties. Every major protest involving force should be independently reviewed. Police action should be transparent. Arrests and criminal cases should be legally justified. Peaceful protesters should not be treated as criminals merely because their message is inconvenient. And political leaders should stop encouraging the dangerous culture of branding every critic as an enemy.
The Constitution already provides the answer. Article 13 makes clear that the State cannot simply legislate away fundamental rights, while Articles 14, 19 and 21 establish core protections for equality, freedom and personal liberty.The real question, therefore, is not whether Punjab has fundamental rights.
It does.
The question is whether ordinary citizens can exercise those rights without fear.If the answer increasingly becomes “only when the government permits it,” then the problem is far bigger than any individual protest, police action or political controversy.Because democracy does not disappear in one dramatic moment.It disappears gradually when citizens stop speaking, stop assembling, stop questioning and finally stop believing that their Constitution will protect them.Punjab must not allow that to happen.A government should be strong enough to face criticism, confident enough to tolerate dissent and democratic enough to protect the rights of even those who oppose it. That is not weakness. That is constitutional strength.
Disclaimer: This article and accompanying images are for informational and illustrative purposes only. Some visuals may be AI-generated or digitally enhanced and may not depict actual events or persons.Views expressed are based on publicly available information and analysis