Legitimate Govt Engages, Doesn't Banish Protesters; 'Police State' Mentality Impermissible: Orissa HC Quashes Exclusion Order Against Doctor

A bench of Justice SK Panigrahi termed the order issued under Section 163(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita as "disproportionate, arbitrary and unconstitutional", stating that the constitutional protection of dissent is not "a mere idealistic slogan" but an essential democratic right.

Further, stressing that treating lawful protest as a security threat signals not the protection of order, but a "breakdown of democratic confidence", the single judge further remarked thus:

"A government confident in its legitimacy and support of law will engage with protesters, not banish them. The constitutional protection of dissent is not a mere idealistic slogan; it has been acknowledged by courts as essential to the democratic fabric of the nation".

Importantly, the bench reminded the state that constitutional ethos does not permit a slide into a police state mentality where executive convenience trumps citizen liberty.

It added that dissent over environmental and livelihood issues affecting the community often 'furthers' the public interest by holding authorities accountable.

The case in brief

Briefly put, Petitioner-Dr. Sequeira was restrained from entering the district for two months by an ex parte order issued on June 5, 2025, the same day a peaceful protest was scheduled in observance of World Environment Day at Sunger Hatapada, near the Sijimali Hills, a site of significant bauxite deposits which also hold cultural and ecological importance for local tribal communities.

Challenging this order, the petitioner argued before Justice Panigrahi that the two-month ban was grossly disproportionate in response to a one-day peaceful event and that the order violated his fundamental rights under Article 19 to free movement, expression, and peaceful assembly.

It was his further case that, despite there being no credible allegation of threat or misconduct, the impugned order directly obstructed his ability to serve the tribal population through his medical and voluntary work.

Lastly, he contended that equating a non-violent environmental protest in a Scheduled Area with a law-and-order threat would set a dangerous and constitutionally unsound precedent.

On the other hand, the state referred to the petitioner's 'chequered past' involving antimining activities, including the distribution of pamphlets, participation in undisclosed meetings, and encouragement of unauthorized assemblies.

It was submitted that the petitioner had been perceived to pose a threat to public peace and order owing to his alleged consistent efforts to instigate tribal communities against government initiatives, particularly in connection with the Sijimali mining project

In fact, it was also submitted that intelligence inputs had indicated his possible linkages with the planned gathering and extremist or Naxalite elements active in the region.

High Court's observations

Rejecting the submissions and justification advanced by the state government, the Court noted that the protest was supposed to be non-violent, it involved no arms and also that it was focused on environmental and livelihood concerns.

In the context of the stand of the Government in the case, the Court said that the real danger is not posed by the protester, but by an executive 'impulse' that seeks to 'insulate' industrial power from public accountability.

Furthermore, the Court also stressed that the power under Section 163 BNSS could only be used to direct any person to abstain from certain acts, and it does not inherently mandate complete territorial exile unless 'absolutely' unavoidable

"If the concern was over a single day's protest, an order for 60 days covering the whole district goes far beyond what is necessary and signals an intent to suppress ongoing dissent rather than address immediate threat", the bench further noted.

The Court also found that the order did not meet the proportionality test and lacked any proximate connection between Dr. Sequeira's presence and breach of public order.

It suggested that the police could have engaged with the petitioner and imposed reasonable conditions on the conduct of the protest, such as limiting it to a particular venue or time, ensuring it remained peaceful, etc., rather than 'flatly' prohibiting his presence

On the point that the order was passed without notice and communicated in a manner that denied the petitioner any opportunity to be heard (he had come to know of the ban only when police stopped him at the district border), the bench said this violated principles of natural justice and was procedurally arbitrary.

Against this backdrop, noting that the order appeared more punitive than preventive, which effectively punished the petitioner for his viewpoint, the court quashed the order in question as being non-justified.

Furthermore, the State authorities, particularly the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate of Rayagada, were directed to facilitate the petitioner's right to organise and participate in peaceful protests, as guaranteed by law.

The Court also recorded that at the relevant time, a large contingent of Odisha's police force had been deployed in Puri for the Ratha Yatra; therefore, the State's concerns regarding crowd control and public safety during that period were not 'unfounded'.

It added that with the conclusion of these festivities, it was expected from the State to provide the necessary support to ensure the petitioner's constitutional rights are upheld without further delay.

Before parting, the Court also laid down certain operational guidelines which would govern the petitioner's exercise of the right to protest and the State's corresponding duties:

a) Prior Notification: The petitioner or any group intending to organize a protest shall provide the District Administration with prior written notice specifying the date, time, venue, estimated attendance, and purpose of the demonstration.

b) Duty to Cooperate: The petitioner and his associates shall fully cooperate with the local authorities to ensure coordination, lawful conduct, and minimization of public inconvenience.

c) State Facilitation: The District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Rayagada, shall designate a suitable time, place, and manner for holding the protest. This must be done in consultation with the organizers and in a manner that ensures the balance between public order and freedom of expression.

d) Reasonable Restrictions: The authorities may impose lawful and proportionate restrictions to maintain peace and order.

These may include, but not limited to:

i. Limitation on the duration and timing of the event

ii. Restrictions on sound amplification

iii. Regulation of crowd size

iv. Measures for traffic and access management

e) Protestor Responsibility: The petitioner, through his counsel, shall undertake to comply with all conditions imposed by the administration. He shall ensure that any demonstration conducted is peaceful, non-violent, and non-obstructive.

f) Post-Protest Review: After any such protest, the administration may conduct a brief post-event review to assess compliance and identify any issues for future coordination.

The Court, however, clarified that the guidelines are specific to the present case and were framed in light of the unique facts and administrative concerns raised before the Court and are not intended to dilute or substitute the constitutional protections available to citizens at large under Article 19 of the Constitution.