Can You Protest at Ramlila Maidan Without Getting into Legal Trouble? Know the Permission Process, Police Powers and Your Constitutional Rights

A peaceful protest is a constitutional right — but can you organise a dharna, rally or demonstration at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan whenever you want? Can the police refuse permission? Can attending a protest affect your other legal cases or create a negative impression against you?

These are important questions for anyone planning to participate in a public demonstration in Delhi.

The law recognises the right of citizens to assemble peacefully, express disagreement and raise their demands before the government. At the same time, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions relating to public order, traffic, safety and the rights of other citizens.

Ramlila Maidan has been identified as an important venue for large public demonstrations in Delhi. However, being a designated protest venue does not mean that every protest can be held there automatically or without permission. The organisers must follow the applicable police and venue procedures and comply with the conditions imposed for the event.

This article explains the legal position in simple language, including the permission process, grounds on which permission can be refused, how to challenge an arbitrary refusal, the consequences of an unauthorised protest, and whether participation in a protest can be used against a person in another case.

1. Is a protest at Ramlila Maidan legally allowed?

Yes. Peaceful protests, dharnas, rallies and demonstrations are legally permissible in India. The constitutional foundation comes primarily from:

• Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 19(1)(b): Right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
• Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, which also protects the interests of people affected by public demonstrations.

These rights allow citizens to express disagreement with government policies, demand action, raise public issues and seek redressal of grievances.

However, these rights are not unlimited. Under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), reasonable restrictions can be imposed on grounds including public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.

For example, the authorities may regulate:

• The location and duration of the protest.
• The number of participants.
• Traffic and crowd-management arrangements.
• The use of loudspeakers and public-address systems.
• Entry and exit routes, emergency access and safety arrangements.
• Activities that may lead to violence, damage to property or disruption of public order.

The important distinction is that the authorities can regulate a peaceful protest, but they cannot use regulation as a disguised method of completely suppressing legitimate dissent.

Recent change in Delhi’s designated protest venues

There has been an important change in Delhi’s protest-site arrangements. By Standing Order No. L&O/48/2026 dated 11 October 2026, Delhi Police removed Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues and identified the following alternative locations:

1. Ramlila Ground, Delhi.
2. Burari Ground.
3. CBD Ground, East Delhi.

The change is significant for anyone planning a demonstration in Delhi. The police order states that revised procedures for the new venues would be issued separately. The Supreme Court has also been approached in a challenge to the October 2026 change; the Court issued notice on the challenge on 15 October 2026. That notice should not be mistaken for a final decision striking down the police order. delhipolice.mha.gov.in+2

Therefore, Ramlila Maidan is an identified protest venue, but permission and venue booking are still necessary. A person cannot simply occupy the ground and assume that its designation gives an automatic right to hold any event there.

2. What is the procedure for getting permission to hold a protest at Ramlila Maidan?

This is one of the most important practical questions.

A protest at Ramlila Maidan involves two distinct aspects:

• Police clearance/NOC: The police examine the law-and-order, security and traffic aspects.
• Permission to use the ground: The land-owning authority must permit the organisers to use the venue.

For Ramlila Maidan, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) is involved in the venue-booking process.

Step 1: Apply to Delhi Police for an NOC

The organisers should approach the competent Delhi Police authority with a written application seeking permission/NOC for the proposed demonstration.

The application should clearly mention:

• Name and address of the organisation or group organising the protest.
• Name and contact details of the authorised organiser.
• Purpose and subject of the protest.
• Proposed date and timings.
• Expected number of participants.
• Details of speakers and important invitees, where applicable.
• Whether a stage, tents, loudspeakers, banners or other arrangements are proposed.
• Crowd-management, security, medical and volunteer arrangements.
• Details of vehicles, if buses or other organised transport are expected.

The police may examine the proposal from the perspective of public order, security, traffic management and the safety of participants and the public.

Step 2: Obtain permission from MCD for booking the ground

After obtaining the police NOC, the organisers must approach the concerned MCD authority for booking Ramlila Maidan.

As reported in October 2026, the MCD booking process for protests was being handled offline through its City-Sadar Paharganj Zone. Organisers were required to submit a manual application on the organisation’s letterhead, along with identification details and the police NOC. The application was then to be considered by the concerned Deputy Commissioner of the zone.

The reported booking arrangements and charges have been subject to changes and differing reports. Accordingly, organisers should obtain the latest written fee schedule, security-deposit requirements and booking conditions directly from MCD before making any payment. The Times of India+2

Step 3: Comply with the conditions imposed by the authorities

Obtaining permission does not mean that the organisers can conduct the protest in any manner they wish.

The permission may contain conditions relating to:

• Maximum number of participants.
• Time by which the protest must conclude.
• Installation of CCTV cameras and crowd-monitoring arrangements.
• Deployment of volunteers.
• Drinking-water and toilet facilities.
• Traffic and parking arrangements.
• No overnight stay.
• No procession beyond the permitted venue.
• No speeches or activities that violate applicable law or incite violence.

For example, the conditions reported for the 1 November 2026 rally at Ramlila Maidan included concluding the programme by 5 PM, making arrangements for CCTV surveillance, volunteers, water and toilets, and ensuring that participants did not remain at the venue overnight. These were event-specific conditions and should not be treated as a universal list applicable to every future protest. India News+1

Practical advice: Keep copies of the police NOC, MCD booking approval, payment receipts and all written conditions. The organisers should also nominate a responsible person to coordinate with the police during the event.

3. Can the police refuse permission to hold a protest?

Yes, the police can refuse permission in appropriate circumstances. However, the refusal cannot be arbitrary, unreasonable or based merely on the fact that the proposed protest is critical of the government or a public authority.

For instance, permission may be refused or the event may be restricted where there are genuine and specific concerns relating to:

• A serious threat to public order.
• A credible risk of violence.
• A substantial traffic or public-safety problem that cannot reasonably be managed.
• A conflict with an existing lawful booking or security arrangement.
• A valid prohibitory order applicable to the proposed location.
• A genuine security concern involving the proposed venue or timing.

However, the authorities should consider whether the concern can be addressed by imposing reasonable conditions instead of refusing the protest altogether.

For example, if the organisers propose a gathering of 10,000 people and the authorities consider that number difficult to manage, they may examine whether a smaller gathering, different timing or additional safety arrangements would address the concern.

A protest cannot be rejected merely because the organisers intend to criticise the government, oppose a policy or raise an uncomfortable public issue.

4. Can you legally challenge the refusal of permission?

Yes. An arbitrary refusal of permission can be challenged before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The High Court can examine whether the police or other authorities have acted lawfully and consistently with the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

Depending on the facts, an organiser may seek:

1. Quashing of an arbitrary rejection order.
2. A direction to the authorities to reconsider the application.
3. A direction to decide the application within a specified time.
4. Permission to hold the protest subject to reasonable conditions.
5. A direction to provide a suitable alternative venue, where the circumstances justify it.

What should you do before approaching the High Court?

A practical course would be:

1. Submit a complete written application for permission.
2. Obtain an acknowledgement or diary number.
3. If permission is refused, ask for the refusal order and the reasons in writing.
4. Submit a representation seeking reconsideration, addressing the specific objections raised by the police.
5. If the refusal remains arbitrary or the matter is urgent, approach the Delhi High Court under Article 226.

Where the proposed protest is scheduled shortly, an urgent writ petition may be considered. The petition should place the application, refusal, correspondence, proposed arrangements and relevant supporting documents on record.

The High Court will not necessarily grant permission merely because the organisers have filed a petition. It will examine the facts, the applicable restrictions and the competing public interests.

5. Can the authorities impose a blanket ban on protests?

This is where constitutional law becomes particularly important.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that the right to peaceful protest is an essential part of democracy. At the same time, the right of protesters must be balanced against the rights of residents, commuters and other members of the public.

A restriction should be reasonable and proportionate. Authorities should ordinarily consider whether the problem can be addressed through regulation rather than imposing a complete ban.

For example, if a protest is likely to cause traffic congestion, the authorities may regulate its location, timing or size. They should not automatically treat every public demonstration as a threat to law and order.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India is particularly important on this issue. Sci API+1

6. Important Supreme Court judgments on the right to protest

The following judgments are particularly relevant to protests at Ramlila Maidan and other public places.

A. In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1

Important Supreme Court judgment

This is one of the most relevant judgments for understanding the rights of protesters and the limits of police powers.

The case arose from the police action during the gathering at Ramlila Maidan in June 2011. The Supreme Court examined the legality of the police action, the right to assemble peacefully and the circumstances in which the State may impose restrictions.

The Court recognised that Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. It also made it clear that these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.

An important principle emerging from the judgment is that preventive action must be based on a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public order. The power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or merely on the basis of an imagined possibility of disorder.

Why is this judgment important?

If the police seek to stop or disperse a peaceful gathering at Ramlila Maidan, the legality of their action can be examined against the principles laid down in this judgment. The authorities must act within the law and cannot use excessive force or arbitrary measures to suppress a peaceful assembly. Sci API+1

B. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324

Leading judgment on designated protest sites

This is perhaps the most important judgment for understanding the concept of designated protest sites in Delhi.

The case concerned restrictions on demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and the proposed shifting of protesters to Ramlila Maidan.

The Supreme Court recognised that peaceful demonstrations by citizens to raise grievances are protected by Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b).

At the same time, the Court acknowledged that residents and other members of the public also have rights, including their right to live peacefully and move freely.

The Court therefore adopted a balancing approach. It recognised that protests could be regulated by earmarking particular places and prescribing reasonable conditions. However, the authorities should not effectively extinguish the right to protest by rejecting every request for a demonstration.

The important legal principle: The government can regulate protests, but regulation should not become a complete prohibition on peaceful dissent.

This judgment is especially useful when challenging an arbitrary refusal of permission or a policy that makes it practically impossible for citizens to hold peaceful demonstrations. Sci API+1

C. Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, (1973) 1 SCC 227

In this judgment, the Supreme Court examined the power of the authorities to regulate public meetings on public streets.

The Court recognised that the State can regulate the use of public streets and require prior permission for public meetings. However, such regulatory power cannot be used to take away the right of assembly altogether.

In simple terms, the authorities may regulate where and how a public meeting is held, but they cannot create a system under which no public meeting is practically possible.

Why is this relevant?

If permission is refused without a reasonable basis, or the applicable rules effectively prevent all peaceful demonstrations, this judgment may be relied upon to question the legality of such restrictions.

D. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police, (2020) 10 SCC 439

This judgment arose from the Shaheen Bagh protest and the obstruction of a public road.

The Supreme Court held that the right to protest cannot be exercised in a manner that indefinitely blocks public roads and seriously affects the daily lives of other citizens.

The Court emphasised that public places and roads cannot be occupied indefinitely for demonstrations to the exclusion of other members of the public.

Why is this relevant?

The right to protest does not give protesters an unrestricted right to occupy any road, public place or government premises. A peaceful protest must also respect the rights of commuters, residents and other members of the public. Explained-law News – The Indian Express+1

E. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

The Supreme Court examined restrictions imposed on communication and movement in Jammu and Kashmir.

The judgment is important because it explains that restrictions affecting fundamental rights must satisfy the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality.

The Court also emphasised the need for publication and review of orders imposing restrictions.

Although the case did not concern permission for a protest at Ramlila Maidan, its principles can be relevant when challenging restrictions that substantially affect the exercise of fundamental rights.

F. Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884

This judgment dealt with preventive orders under the then Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Supreme Court recognised that preventive orders can be challenged by persons affected by them. The State’s power to impose preventive restrictions is not beyond judicial scrutiny.

This is relevant where an organiser or participant is affected by a prohibitory order that restricts public meetings or assemblies.

7. Does participating in a protest create a negative inference against you?

No. Merely participating in a peaceful and lawful protest does not automatically create a negative inference against a person.

This is an important point because many people hesitate to participate in demonstrations due to the fear that their presence may later be used against them in a criminal case, civil dispute, employment matter or other legal proceeding.

The Constitution protects peaceful assembly and expression. Therefore, a person cannot ordinarily be treated as guilty, dishonest, anti-national or involved in unlawful activity merely because that person attended a peaceful protest or expressed disagreement with a government policy.

For example:

• A person participating in a peaceful protest against a government policy cannot automatically be treated as an accused in a criminal case merely because of that participation.
• A person’s presence at a protest cannot, by itself, establish that the person committed violence or damaged public property.
• A person cannot automatically be treated as having a criminal background merely because they attended a demonstration.
• Peaceful political or social dissent cannot, by itself, be treated as proof of bad character or criminal intention.

But can participation ever be used against a person?

Yes, depending on the facts.

There is a difference between participating in a peaceful protest and committing an unlawful act during a protest.

If a person is specifically found to have:

• Assaulted or threatened someone.
• Damaged public or private property.
• Incited violence or promoted enmity in violation of law.
• Disobeyed a lawful order in circumstances attracting penal consequences.
• Participated in an unlawful assembly with the legally required common object.
• Committed any other identifiable criminal act.

then that person’s individual conduct may attract legal consequences.

However, the prosecution must establish the ingredients of the relevant offence. Mere presence at the protest, without more, is not a substitute for proof of criminal liability.

Can your photograph or video at a protest be used against you?

A photograph or video may be relevant evidence to establish that a person was present at a particular place or time. However, proof of presence is not automatically proof of participation in violence or commission of an offence.

The court must examine the full circumstances, the quality and authenticity of the evidence, the person’s actual conduct and the ingredients of the alleged offence.

Can attending a protest affect another pending criminal case?

Not automatically.

Suppose a person is facing trial in a criminal case and also participates in a peaceful demonstration at Ramlila Maidan. The mere fact that the person attended the demonstration cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of guilt in the pending case.

Similarly, mere participation in a protest should not automatically be treated as a reason to deny bail, reject an application or draw an adverse conclusion about the person’s character.

However, if the prosecution produces relevant and admissible material showing that the person committed a separate offence during the protest, that conduct can be considered in the appropriate proceedings.

The legal position is therefore clear: peaceful dissent is constitutionally protected; criminal conduct, if independently established, is not protected merely because it occurred during a protest.

8. What are the legal consequences of holding a protest without permission?

A protest without the required permission or in breach of a valid prohibitory order may expose organisers and participants to legal action. The exact consequences depend on the applicable order, the conduct of the individuals and the offences, if any, committed.

The following provisions may become relevant in appropriate cases:

Provision	What it deals with
Section 163, BNSS, 2023	Urgent orders in cases of nuisance or apprehended danger; may restrict certain assemblies or activities.
Section 223, BNS, 2023	Disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant, where its statutory ingredients are met.
Section 189, BNS, 2023	Unlawful assembly and related provisions.
Section 191, BNS, 2023	Rioting, where the statutory requirements are satisfied.
Other applicable BNS provisions	Assault, criminal intimidation, mischief, obstruction or other offences, depending on the actual conduct.

A few important clarifications:

First, holding a protest without permission does not automatically mean that every participant has committed every offence listed above. The police must establish the ingredients of the particular offence.

Second, an unlawful assembly is not established merely because five or more people have gathered. The prosecution must establish a common object falling within the definition under Section 189 BNS.

Third, Section 223 BNS is not attracted merely because an organiser has failed to obtain a venue booking. The prosecution must establish disobedience of an order duly promulgated by a public servant and the other statutory requirements.

Fourth, where a valid prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS applies, organisers and participants should not assume that a peaceful intention alone permits them to disregard it.

Can the police arrest protesters?

The police may take lawful steps to prevent a breach of peace, enforce a valid order, disperse an unlawful gathering and investigate cognizable offences where the legal requirements are satisfied.

However, arrest is not automatic merely because a person is present at a protest. The police must follow the applicable arrest safeguards and statutory requirements.

If a person is arrested, they retain their constitutional and statutory rights, including the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, access to legal assistance and production before a Magistrate within the prescribed period.

Can the police use force to disperse a protest?

The police may use lawful and proportionate measures in circumstances where dispersal is legally justified. However, the use of force must not be arbitrary, excessive or punitive.

The principles laid down in In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident are particularly relevant when examining police action against a gathering.

9. What remedies are available if the police illegally stop or disperse a peaceful protest?

A protest organiser or participant who believes that the police have acted unlawfully may have several legal remedies, depending on the circumstances.

A. Approach the Delhi High Court under Article 226

A writ petition may be filed where, for example:

• Permission has been arbitrarily refused.
• A peaceful demonstration has been stopped without a legally sustainable reason.
• A prohibitory order has been passed without satisfying the statutory requirements.
• The police have imposed unreasonable conditions that effectively prevent the protest.
• Permission has been cancelled arbitrarily.
• The authorities have failed to provide a meaningful alternative venue despite imposing restrictions that make the proposed demonstration impossible.

The High Court may examine the legality of the decision and grant appropriate relief.

B. Challenge an order under Section 163 BNSS

If the authorities have issued an order under Section 163 BNSS restricting a public gathering, the affected person may challenge the order before the appropriate court.

The challenge may examine whether:

• The order was passed by the competent authority.
• The statutory conditions for passing the order existed.
• There was an urgent situation requiring preventive action.
• The restrictions were necessary and proportionate.
• The order was being used to impose an unreasonable or blanket prohibition.

The fact that the order is preventive does not make it immune from judicial review.

C. Seek compensation for unlawful police action

Where police action involves an established violation of fundamental rights, particularly an unlawful or excessive use of force, a person may seek appropriate compensation.

Depending on the facts, compensation may be claimed through constitutional proceedings or other remedies available under law.

However, compensation is not automatic. The person seeking it must establish the relevant violation and satisfy the legal requirements for the relief claimed.

D. Challenge an FIR or criminal proceedings

If an FIR has been registered against a protest participant, the person may seek appropriate legal remedies.

Depending on the facts, these may include:

• Applying for anticipatory bail or regular bail.
• Challenging an unlawful arrest.
• Seeking quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS, where the legal grounds exist.
• Challenging the applicability of particular offences.
• Contesting the prosecution’s evidence during trial.

The mere fact that an FIR has been registered does not establish guilt.

10. What if a protest causes inconvenience or loss to residents and shopkeepers?

The right to protest must also be balanced against the rights of people who live, work or travel in the affected area.

For example, a protest may cause:

• Blocking of roads and access to residential buildings.
• Loss of business to shopkeepers.
• Disruption of essential services.
• Excessive noise and disturbance to residents.
• Obstruction of ambulances and emergency vehicles.
• Damage to public or private property.

People affected by such conduct are not without remedies.

They may submit a written complaint to the police and the concerned civic authorities, seek preventive action, and approach the appropriate court where serious or continuing violations require judicial intervention.

In suitable cases, affected persons may also seek an injunction or compensation, subject to establishing the relevant legal requirements.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police is important here. It makes clear that the right to protest cannot be exercised in a manner that indefinitely deprives other citizens of the use of public roads and spaces.

11. What should organisers do to avoid legal problems during a protest?

A protest can be conducted peacefully and lawfully if organisers take reasonable precautions.

Some practical steps are:

1. Obtain the required police NOC and venue permission.
2. Clearly communicate the purpose, location and duration of the protest.
3. Appoint responsible organisers and identifiable volunteers.
4. Ensure that participants do not carry weapons or prohibited articles.
5. Do not obstruct emergency routes or access to essential services.
6. Follow the permitted timings and crowd limits.
7. Do not damage public or private property.
8. Avoid speeches or slogans that amount to criminal threats, incitement or other unlawful conduct.
9. Follow lawful directions issued by the competent authorities.
10. Preserve copies of all permissions, communications and relevant recordings.

It is also advisable to maintain a record of the arrangements made by the organisers. This can be important if a dispute subsequently arises regarding compliance with the conditions of permission.

12. Myth vs Reality: What people should know about protests at Ramlila Maidan

Myth	Reality
Anyone can organise a protest at Ramlila Maidan without permission.	The required police clearance and permission to use the venue must be obtained.
The police can prohibit every protest whenever they want.	Restrictions must have a lawful basis and cannot be arbitrary.
Criticising the government during a protest is a criminal offence.	Peaceful criticism and dissent are protected by the Constitution.
Everyone attending an unauthorised protest is automatically guilty of an offence.	Criminal liability depends on the applicable law and the individual’s conduct.
A photograph at a protest proves that the person committed a crime.	Presence alone does not establish participation in a criminal act.
A designated protest site means that no restrictions can be imposed.	The authorities can impose reasonable conditions concerning safety, timing, crowd size and public order.
The police can use unlimited force to disperse a protest.	Police action must be lawful, necessary and proportionate.
Attending a protest automatically creates a negative inference in another criminal case.	Peaceful participation alone does not establish guilt or criminal intention in another case.
A person cannot challenge the refusal of protest permission.	An arbitrary or unlawful refusal can be challenged before the High Court.

13. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. Is Ramlila Maidan an officially designated protest site?

Yes. Under Delhi Police’s Standing Order dated 11 October 2026, Ramlila Ground was identified as one of the designated venues for protests and demonstrations, along with Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi.

Q2. Can an individual organise a protest at Ramlila Maidan?

An individual or group may seek permission, subject to the applicable police and venue-booking requirements. The organisers should submit the required details and obtain the necessary approvals before conducting the event.

Q3. Is police permission sufficient to hold a protest at Ramlila Maidan?

Not necessarily. Police clearance and permission from the land-owning authority to use the ground are distinct requirements. Organisers should obtain both where applicable.

Q4. Can the police refuse permission because the protest is against the government?

A protest cannot lawfully be rejected merely because it criticises the government or raises demands against a public authority. Any restriction must be supported by lawful and reasonable grounds.

Q5. Can I approach the Delhi High Court if permission is refused?

Yes. An arbitrary refusal may be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court can examine the legality of the refusal and grant appropriate relief.

Q6. Can the police arrest a person for attending a protest?

Mere attendance at a peaceful protest does not automatically justify arrest. However, a participant may face legal action if their individual conduct attracts the ingredients of a criminal offence or violates a valid and applicable legal order.

Q7. Can my participation in a protest affect my pending criminal case?

Not merely because you participated in a peaceful demonstration. The prosecution must establish a legally relevant connection between the alleged conduct and the offence in question. Mere attendance at a protest is not proof of guilt in another case.

Q8. Can a peaceful protest be stopped under Section 163 BNSS?

A lawful order under Section 163 BNSS may restrict assemblies or activities where the statutory conditions are satisfied. However, the order must be legally justified and remains open to judicial scrutiny.

Q9. Can the police disperse a protest even after granting permission?

Permission does not authorise violence or violation of lawful conditions. In an appropriate situation involving a genuine threat to public order or safety, the police may take lawful steps, including dispersal. However, the action must be justified and proportionate.

Q10. Can residents or shopkeepers challenge a protest that blocks their access?

Yes. Persons affected by obstruction, unlawful occupation, damage or serious disruption may approach the police and, where necessary, the appropriate court for relief.

Conclusion

The right to protest is one of the important features of a democratic society. Citizens must have the freedom to express disagreement, question government decisions and demand action on matters affecting public interest.

At the same time, this freedom must be exercised peacefully and in a manner that respects the rights of other citizens.

The law therefore attempts to maintain a balance: the government cannot suppress legitimate dissent merely because it is inconvenient, and protesters cannot use their constitutional rights to justify violence, unlawful occupation or serious disruption of public life.

For anyone planning a protest at Ramlila Maidan, the safest course is to obtain the required police NOC, secure permission from the venue authority and comply with the conditions imposed.

And for anyone who is merely attending a peaceful demonstration, one important point should be remembered: participating in a peaceful protest is not, by itself, a crime and should not automatically be treated as evidence of wrongdoing.