Introduction
In a vibrant democracy, protest is both inevitable and indispensable. Among the many symbolic forms of dissent in India, the act of showing a black flag to a VVIP has acquired a distinct political and legal significance. It is often employed as a silent yet powerful expression of opposition, resentment, or warning against policies, governance failures, or perceived injustice. However, when such protest is directed at a VVIP—whose security is intertwined with national stability—the act moves from the realm of pure expression into a complex zone where fundamental rights intersect with public order and security imperatives.
The role of the police in this context becomes especially delicate. Police authorities are constitutionally bound to protect the life and liberty of individuals, including VVIPs, while simultaneously safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. The challenge lies in balancing the right to peaceful protest with the obligation to prevent disorder, disruption, or threats to security. This article critically examines the legal status of black-flag demonstrations, the evolving jurisprudence on protest near VVIP movements, and the duties, powers, and limitations of the police in such situations.
Meaning and Symbolism of Showing a Black Flag
Historically, a black flag has symbolized protest, dissent, warning, and rejection of authority. In Indian political culture, showing a black flag to a leader is generally understood as a symbolic and non-violent expression of disapproval. Unlike slogans or physical obstruction, a black flag is often silent, visual, and momentary.
However, symbolism does not operate in a vacuum. When a VVIP is involved, even symbolic acts can acquire heightened sensitivity. Security agencies often view any unexpected visual signal near a VVIP convoy as a potential precursor to disruption or attack. Thus, what may appear to be a harmless democratic expression to the protester can be perceived as a security red flag by protection agencies.
Constitutional Framework: Right to Protest vs. Public Order
Freedom of Speech and Assembly
Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution guarantee the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Peaceful protest, including symbolic dissent such as black-flag demonstrations, falls squarely within this constitutional protection.
However, these rights are not absolute. Article 19(2) and 19(3) permit the State to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, and morality.
Public Order and Security of the State
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the State has a legitimate interest in regulating protests that have the potential to disturb public order or endanger life. When a protest coincides with VVIP movement, the threshold for permissible restriction becomes lower, as the risk assessment shifts from ordinary law and order to national security.
Legal Provisions Governing Black-Flag Protests
Criminal Law Framework
Police action during black-flag demonstrations is usually justified under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) such as:
- Section 163 BNSS: Prohibitory orders restricting assembly in sensitive areas.
- Sections 188, 189, 190, 191 BNS: Relating to disobedience of lawful orders, unlawful assembly, and prevention of cognizable offences.
- Sections 285 and 126(2) BNS: Obstruction of public way or wrongful restraint, if a convoy or route is impeded.
The mere act of showing a black flag, without violence or obstruction, does not automatically constitute an offence. However, violation of prohibitory orders or attempts to breach security perimeters may invite lawful police intervention.
Preventive Policing Powers
Police are empowered to act preventively under Section 170 BNSS and other related sections of laws to avert anticipated threats. Detention under preventive sections, temporary seizure of protest material, or removal of demonstrators from restricted zones are often justified on the ground of imminent danger, even in the absence of an overt offence.
Judicial Approach to Black-Flag Demonstrations
Indian courts have generally adopted a nuanced approach. They have recognized black-flag demonstrations as a legitimate form of protest, provided they are peaceful and non-obstructive. At the same time, courts have upheld the authority of the police to restrict or disperse such protests near VVIP movements in the interest of security.
Judicial pronouncements emphasize that:
- Peaceful dissent cannot be criminalized merely because it is inconvenient to the government.
- Security considerations relating to VVIPs justify reasonable restrictions on time, place, and manner of protest.
- Arbitrary or excessive use of police power violates constitutional guarantees.
This jurisprudence reinforces the principle that context, proximity, and intent are crucial in determining the legality of police action.
Role of Police During VVIP Black-Flag Protests
Threat Assessment and Intelligence Inputs
The police act primarily on intelligence assessments. Even a symbolic protest may be restricted if intelligence suggests the possibility of infiltration, escalation, or exploitation by hostile elements. The police must rely on credible inputs rather than speculative fear.
Regulation, Not Suppression
The constitutional role of the police is to regulate protests, not suppress dissent. This involves:
- Identifying designated protest zones away from VVIP routes.
- Imposing reasonable conditions on timing and numbers.
- Ensuring visibility of protest without compromising security.
Use of Force and Arrest
Force must always be a last resort. Arrests made solely for displaying black flags, without violation of law or prohibitory orders, are legally vulnerable. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed proportionality and necessity in police response.
Protection of Protesters’ Rights
Ironically, police responsibility extends not only to protecting the VVIP but also to ensuring the safety of protesters from retaliation, crowd violence, or misuse of authority. This dual role underscores the complexity of policing dissent in a democratic framework.
Misuse of Police Powers and Democratic Concerns
Instances have been reported where black-flag protests were met with excessive police action, including preventive detention, confiscation of flags, or registration of criminal cases. Such actions raise concerns of chilling effect on free speech and politicization of policing.
When police act as instruments of political convenience rather than neutral guardians of law, public trust erodes. Democratic legitimacy depends not on the absence of protest, but on the State’s ability to tolerate and manage dissent within the rule of law.
Standard Operating Procedures and Best Practices
Modern policing requires clear SOPs for handling protests during VVIP visits. These should include:
- Pre-visit mapping of protest-prone groups and areas.
- Advance communication with protest organizers.
- Clear demarcation of restricted and permissible zones.
- Documentation of police action to ensure accountability.
Training police personnel in constitutional rights and crowd psychology is as important as tactical preparedness.
Federal Dimension and Coordination Issues
VVIP visits often involve Central security agencies working alongside State police. Divergent approaches to protest management can result in overreaction or confusion. While Central agencies prioritize zero-risk security, State police must balance local political sensitivities and constitutional obligations.
Effective coordination and a shared understanding of protest rights are essential to prevent unnecessary confrontation and reputational damage to the State.
Conclusion
Showing a black flag to a VVIP occupies a legally and politically sensitive space in India’s democratic landscape. It is, at its core, a form of peaceful dissent protected by the Constitution. Yet, when it intersects with VVIP security, it invites legitimate regulation by the State.
The role of the police is neither to criminalize dissent nor to abdicate security responsibilities. It is to strike a careful balance—allowing symbolic protest while preventing disorder or threat. This balance demands professionalism, legal clarity, restraint, and constitutional fidelity.
Ultimately, the strength of Indian democracy is measured not by the absence of black flags, but by the maturity with which the State responds to them. A police force that protects both the protester’s right to dissent and the VVIP’s right to security exemplifies the true spirit of the rule of law.
