Retired Supreme Court judge Abhay S. Oka said courts should not dictate what protesters say or avoid saying during peaceful demonstrations.
This stance emphasizes the judiciary's role in protecting fundamental rights against state overreach. By arguing that courts should not police speech, Oka suggests that judicial interference in the language of dissent could undermine the constitutional right to protest.
Speaking at the inaugural Advocate Haroon Solkar Memorial Lecture on Aug. 1, 2026 [1], Oka addressed an audience at the KC College auditorium in Mumbai [2]. He said that the judiciary must safeguard democracy by ensuring citizens can express their grievances without fear of criminalization.
"It is not courts' function to preach what protestors should say or not say," Oka said [3]. He said that courts must not preach what citizens should say [4].
Oka, who served on the Supreme Court from August 2021 to May 2025 [5], linked the ability to protest directly to the survival of democratic systems. He said that if people are not allowed to express displeasure through peaceful protest, democracy will not exist [6].
During the event, which included the 2026 Juridical Excellence Award [7], the retired judge urged the legal system to quash cases intended to silence dissent. He said that the role of the court is to protect the rights of the individual, not to act as a moral arbiter of the slogans used during a protest.
His remarks come as a reminder of the tension between maintaining public order and upholding free speech. Oka said that the protection of peaceful protest is a constitutional necessity that the judiciary is obligated to defend regardless of the content of the speech.
“"It is not courts' function to preach what protestors should say or not say."”
Justice Oka's remarks signal a judicial philosophy that prioritizes the 'right to dissent' over the state's desire for curated or polite protest. By calling for the quashing of cases that silence dissent, he is advocating for a higher threshold of evidence before speech is criminalized, suggesting that the mere act of expressing 'displeasure' should not be a legal trigger for prosecution.
