THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS PROTEST — NOT A PRIVILEGE TO DISOBEY THE LAW. JANTAR MANTAR, THE COCKROACH JANTA PARTY AND THE LIMITS OF CONSTITUTIONAL DISSENT The Delhi High Court's questions to CJP leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka go to the heart of constitutional democracy. If you have executed a peace bond, what legal justification permits you to disregard its conditions? If Parliament has provided a statutory appellate remedy under Section 414 BNSS for specified security and surety orders, why bypass that remedy without establishing exceptional grounds? And if the Government has designated alternative protest sites, why insist upon entering a restricted location rather than pursuing lawful remedies? THE RIGHT TO PROTEST IS NOT THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHICH LAWS ONE WILL OBEY. But the Constitution places an equally serious duty upon the State. A PEACE BOND CANNOT BECOME A BOND OF POLITICAL SILENCE. No administration may use preventive powers to punish citizens merely for expressing dissent. Every restriction must satisfy the law; every detention must withstand judicial scrutiny. THE CONSTITUTION RECOGNISES NEITHER AN UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT NOR AN UNACCOUNTABLE PROTESTER. Political passion cannot replace legal discipline. State authority cannot replace constitutional restraint. THE RULE OF LAW IS NOT A WEAPON TO BE USED AGAINST ONE SIDE. IT IS THE STANDARD BY WHICH BOTH SIDES MUST BE JUDGED. — NK Goswami Advocate, Supreme Court of India #DelhiHighCourt #JantarMantar #CockroachJantaParty #RightToProtest #SupremeCourt #BNSS #SauravDas #AshutoshRanka #DelhiPolice #Article226 #RuleOfLaw #ConstitutionOfIndia #NKGoswami @CJP_for_India @Cockroachisback @CJP_2029 @RahulGandhi @pbhushan1 @JethmalaniM @KapilSibal @yadavakhilesh @DrMohanBhagwat @RSSorg @realDonaldTrump @elonmusk @SanjayAzadSln @duttsanjay