The national capital witnessed unprecedented scenes recently when around 150 Delhi Police personnel protested outside the force’s headquarters against the transfer of two officers following an alleged scuffle with lawyers in Shahdara. Bound by strict service rules, police officers do not enjoy the right to protest like ordinary citizens and are generally barred from demonstrations over service-related grievances.However, the latest agitation raises several critical questions—the most pertinent being whether police officers have the legal right to protest. Delving into a finer aspect, former Additional Solicitor General of India and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra says, “A strike by a police officer is not an offence against the state but only becomes one if they act in breach of applicable laws.”Luthra, who has represented the Delhi Police and other investigation agencies on multiple occasions, noted that police personnel are governed by conduct rules applicable to police officers, and they do not lose the right to freedom of speech but “being a uniformed and disciplined force, they have to exercise restraint beyond that applicable to ordinary citizens”.The Delhi Police’s protest broke out in the wake of the October 28 transfer of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashistha and Station House Officer (SHO) Arun Kumar following a minor parking dispute outside a salon in North-East Delhi when a couple asked a biker to move a two-wheeler blocking their salon’s entry. The couple claimed that after a few hours, the salon was vandalised by a group of lawyers.Taking a closer look at the issue, another Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa says the police are a disciplined force entrusted with maintaining public order, and their individual rights must be balanced against the institutional responsibility of preserving discipline, neutrality and public confidence. “A police officer cannot claim an unrestricted right to agitate, strike or participate in demonstrations in a manner inconsistent with the discipline of the force,” he adds. Delhi Police personnel staged a protest outside the force’s headquarters on Monday. (Express Photo by Abhinav Saha)The legal angleUnder Indian law, police personnel do not have a general or fundamental right to protest or to be on strike. Article 33 of the Constitution allows the Parliament to modify or restrict fundamental rights (like freedom of speech under Article 19) of members of the armed forces, paramilitary forces, and police personnel responsible for maintaining public order.Also Read | How a bike outside salon led to Delhi Police-lawyers face-off, ACP’s suspensionAdvocate Arpit Bhargava explains that if the police officers are aggrieved by a transfer posting, they have the option to file a representation, join the new posting, and then take the matter to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).Story continues below this ad“If this is allowed to continue, governments will fail to function, and governance will become a victim if each officer who is transferred jumps to protest without resorting to legal remedies. This will lead to anarchy. If a particular officer feels he has been wronged, he has to act as per the laws of India and cannot devise his own means to vent frustration,” Bhargava says.The right to protest has been rather explicitly denied to the police under the Police Forces (Restrictions of Rights) Act, 1966. Section 3 of the Act clearly states that without the approval of the central government, no police personnel is allowed to take part in any “demonstration” organised by anyone for any reason. Violation of this rule can be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to two years or with a fine of up to Rs 2,000 or both.The restriction also arises indirectly from the Delhi Police Act, 1978, where Section 24 conveys that every police officer who is not on leave or under suspension is deemed to be “always on duty”. This acts as a practical restriction on a police officer’s ability to protest, as personnel have to be ready for deployment at any moment, and protesting or going on strike would mean that they would not be available to be “always on duty”.Pahwa calls it a “constitutional paradox” where the police must protect the democratic right of citizens to protest, while remaining subject to a significantly more restrictive framework governing their own participation in protests. “The uniform carries not merely authority, but also a heightened responsibility,” he says.Story continues below this adThe Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which is applicable to sub-inspectors, inspectors, deputy commissioners and assistant commissioners of the Delhi Police, also state under Rule 7 that no government servant shall engage in any demonstration which is harmful to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.Further, according to the rule, no government servant is allowed to carry out a strike in connection with any matter regarding his service or the service of any other government servant.According to advocate Vaibhavi Sharma, while police personnel are entitled to raise concerns regarding their service conditions and administrative decisions, their right to protest is subject to statutory limitations. “Article 33 of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to restrict certain fundamental rights of members of the police force to maintain discipline and ensure the effective discharge of their duties.”She refers to the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, which, under Section 3, prohibits participation in demonstrations without prior sanction from the competent authority, and its violation attracts a maximum of two years’ imprisonment and a fine.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Can a married woman or man undergo IVF if their spouse crosses age limit? Experts clarify“In the present case, the suspension of the ACP must be viewed in the context of the applicable service rules. Suspension is essentially an interim administrative measure and cannot, by itself, be construed as an establishment of misconduct. Any subsequent disciplinary action must be based on identifiable violations and must comply with the principles of natural justice,” adds Sharma.What led to the protestThe protest followed the transfer of Assistant Commissioner of Police Manasvi Vashistha and Station House Officer Arun Kumar after a dispute between salon owners and lawyers in Shahdara escalated into allegations of assault. Both sides filed cross-complaints, with the advocates alleging that the ACP threatened them with his revolver. The police registered a case against 15–20 lawyers for allegedly misbehaving with officers and obstructing government work. The Centre suspended the ACP on November 2.The agitation by the police may have put the spotlight on service-related grievances, but the law is clear and it leaves little room for personnel to take to the streets. Their grievances, if any, must be taken up through the proper departmental channels and not through demonstrations that threaten the discipline they are expected to observe.