India, July 30 -- There is a peculiar ritual in India whenever citizens protest. Before we scrutinise State action, the protester must first prove the legitimacy of his grievance, justify his methods, and validate his right to protest. The State responds with a familiar script: Barricades, batons, and tear gas. We have seen this play out with remarkable consistency in every major confrontation between citizens and the State in recent years: Jamia Milia Islamia, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Shaheen Bagh, Singhu border, Kashmir. But constitutionally, that is the wrong question. A democracy allows citizens to dissent and protest. It is the State that must justify restricting it. Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution permit citizens to speak, dissent and assemble. Article 14protects equality before law, andArticle 21, life and liberty. Read together, they recognise that citizens in a democracy are entitled to hold opinions and express themcollectively, publicly, and peacefully. This is not accidental. The Constitution was written by men and women who repeatedly encountered the State through force. From Jallianwala Bagh to the Salt March and Quit IndiaMovement, colonial rule answered resistance with persecution andviolence. Our fundamental rights were, therefore, drafted not as privileges granted by the State, but as limits imposed upon it. Independent India was expected to abandon the instinct to suppress. Instead, it has inherited it. The Emergency remains its darkest expression, but it is hardly its only one. Countless times, the machinery of the State has been deployed against political opponents, students, farmers, journalists, and ordinary citizens. Again and again, it has fallen upon the Supreme Court to remind the State that its power is not unlimited. In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1973), the Court held that the State may regulate, but not extinguish, the right to assemble publicly. In Anita Thakur (2016), compensation was awarded in recognition of police excesses. In the 2012 Ramlila Maidan protests, the Court took suo motu cognisance of police action against protesters in real time. It categorised the police crackdown as an "abuse of power" and ordered criminal action against officers responsible. It emphasised that use of force by the police must satisfy the tests of necessity and proportionality. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), itreaffirmed peaceful protest as constitutionally protected, subject only to regulation of time, place, and manner. Above all stands DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), the Court's landmark judgment that addresses custodial abuse. While it does not specifically govern protests, the key holding is that police must adhere to constitutional limits during street dispersal. It mandates that officers must carry clear identification. In case of arrest, a memo must be prepared and witnessed. A relative or friend must be informed promptly. The place of detention must be disclosed. Medical examinations are mandatory. The detainee has the right to consult a lawyer, and a proper arrest record must be maintained. The images from Delhi last week have shown us the dangerous impunity with which these limits were defied. Bloodied heads, broken limbs, lathi-charges, pellet gun wounds. A split head is a medical injury. It becomes a constitutional injury when inflicted by the State outside the guarantees of Article 14 and 21. That is why every lathi-charge, every detention, and every use of force by the State carries a constitutional burden. As the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court hear petitions arising from these allegations, they are not writing on a blank constitutional slate. The law already exists. Earlier this week, the Court reiterated that agitation cannot justify excess State force. Because the allegations span across multiple cities, were witnessed by hundreds, and recorded from multiple angles, the courts must determine whether this was the work of a few rogue officers or coordinated orders from a higher command. That determination requires an independent inquiry, clear accountability, and definite consequences. Another declaration of principles after the blood dries will not do. The citizen cannot answer a lathi with a lathi, or an unlawful arrest with force of his own. His only shield is the Constitution. For decades, judgment by judgment, the Court has guarded this shield. Now is the time to raise it....