Clean air, protest, and the question of democratic space in Delhi

By Renuka Soni*  

In a constitutional democracy, the state is entrusted with safeguarding the life, liberty, and dignity of its citizens. Political theorist John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government, argued that individuals consent to political authority primarily to secure these basic rights, and that state power loses legitimacy when it harms life, liberty, or property. Events surrounding the air pollution protests held in Delhi on 9 and 23 November 2025, particularly the police response at India Gate and subsequent legal proceedings, have raised renewed questions about the boundaries of state authority and the protection of constitutional freedoms in India.

The protests were organised under the banner of the Delhi Coordination Committee for Clean Air, a joint platform of students, environmental groups, lawyers, and activists highlighting Delhi’s worsening air quality. While the demonstrations were framed by organisers as peaceful and issue-based, the police response included detentions and arrests that have since become the subject of judicial scrutiny. Several protest organisers and participants remain in custody as pre-trial processes continue.

On 23 November, Delhi Police detained six student activists from a gathering estimated by participants to include a few hundred people at India Gate. Later that day, a group of students, lawyers, and activists assembled outside Parliament Street police station to demand their release. Seventeen individuals from this group were subsequently arrested, a second FIR was filed, and they were described by the police as “co-conspirators.” According to the prosecution, certain slogans raised during the protest — including references to the killing of Maoist and Adivasi leader Madvi Hidma — contributed to the alleged conspiracy.

Civil liberties groups and activists, including Adivasi rights campaigners such as Soni Sori, have alleged that Hidma was killed in an extra-judicial encounter following unlawful detention. These claims remain contested, but they form an important part of the political context in which the slogans were raised. Under Indian constitutional jurisprudence, extra-judicial killings, if proven, would constitute serious violations of law regardless of the political affiliations of the deceased.

Several of the arrested students argue that their environmental demands and their expressions of solidarity with Adivasi movements stem from a broader critique of prevailing development models. Their public writings and interviews focus on pollution, deforestation, and displacement rather than armed insurgency. Courts have repeatedly held that the expression of radical or unpopular political ideas, in the absence of links to banned organisations or calls for violence, is protected speech.

Concerns have been raised about the manner of arrests and the identification of accused persons. In some cases, families and fellow students claim that individuals were detained despite not being present at the original protest site. These assertions have led to questions about the quality of evidence relied upon by the police, a matter that continues to be examined during bail hearings. It is also notable that many of the student organisations involved are left-leaning, which critics argue may have influenced the framing of the case.

The experiences reported by three of the accused have drawn particular attention to conditions of custody and the treatment of detainees.

One of them, Kranti, a 21-year-old transgender woman and environmental activist associated with the Himkhand collective, was reportedly held in male lock-ups despite the protections guaranteed under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Friends and lawyers have alleged repeated misgendering, invasive searches, and verbal abuse while she was in custody. These claims, if substantiated, point to systemic failures in implementing statutory protections for transgender persons within policing institutions.

Another accused, Ravjot Kaur, vice-president of Bhagat Singh Chatra Ekta Manch, has been publicly identified as a student leader associated with the protests. Her published writings argue that structural features of India’s development model contribute to environmental crises such as Delhi’s air pollution. During court proceedings, an allegation was raised that a male police officer made a sexually inappropriate remark about her while she was in transit to court. The statement was placed on record by a co-accused, and the incident underscores broader concerns about gender safety and accountability within custodial settings.

The third widely circulated image from the protests showed Akshay ER, a 24-year-old Adivasi law student, being restrained forcefully by police officers during his arrest. Akshay has stated through legal submissions that he was protesting both air pollution and deforestation affecting Adivasi regions. His lawyers have alleged that he faced threats and violence in judicial custody, including intimidation by other inmates. These claims, too, remain allegations but reflect long-standing concerns raised by Adivasi organisations regarding custodial violence and discrimination.

Beyond individual testimonies, the legal proceedings themselves have highlighted gaps in the prosecution’s case. During bail hearings, courts have questioned the police on basic factual issues, including responsibility for allegedly carrying or using pepper spray during the protest. Judicial observations noting investigative inadequacies have strengthened defence arguments that the case may rely more on suspicion than on substantiated evidence.

The broader concern articulated by civil liberties advocates is that stringent laws and procedural delays are increasingly being used to keep protesters incarcerated while investigations continue. Comparisons have been drawn with earlier cases, such as the Bhima Koregaon prosecutions and the arrests following the anti-CAA protests, where prolonged pre-trial detention became a central issue of debate.

Environmental protests and regional movements across India — from Ladakh to Bastar — have similarly faced restrictions, arrests, and, in some cases, use of force. Supporters of these movements argue that such responses risk narrowing democratic space and discouraging peaceful civic engagement.

At the political level, the government has reiterated its commitment to ending armed Maoist insurgency by March 2026. At the same time, allegations linking urban protest movements to Maoist influence have been used by law enforcement in cases such as the Delhi pollution protests. This dual narrative has prompted questions about whether ideological dissent is being conflated with security threats.

The unfolding legal process will determine the outcome of the November arrests. Regardless of the verdicts, the episode raises enduring questions about how the state balances public order, national security, and the constitutional right to dissent. As environmental crises intensify and youth-led movements gain visibility, the credibility of democratic institutions will increasingly depend on their ability to accommodate protest without criminalising it.

---

*Senior Research Assistant, Department of Public Policy and Sustainable Development, TERI School of Advanced Studies, New Delhi