What is the issue and why are there protests?

The Uttar Pradesh government has issued wide directions that curb caste-based mobilisation in public life. The order says there should be no caste-based political rallies, no display of caste labels on vehicles and signboards, and no routine mention of caste in police records unless it is directly relevant to the case. The government says it is acting to reduce division and to follow a recent direction from the Allahabad High Court that disapproved public caste glorification and asked authorities to remove caste references from official and public spaces. 

The order has sparked sharp reactions. Opposition parties and some allies of the ruling party argue that it targets community outreach and social justice politics. They worry that a blanket ban on caste-linked gatherings could shrink space for groups that highlight discrimination. 

The court and government orders — and The Larger Question

• Allahabad High Court: In a recent case, the court told the state to stop caste glorification in public and to ensure police do not mention caste unless needed for investigation. Following this, police began removing thousands of caste-linked hoardings, posters and signages across districts.
  
• UP government order: The government went further. It prohibits caste-based political rallies, removal of caste labels from signboards and vehicles, and discourages caste mentions in police documents unless essential. Media reports describe it as a sweeping order that aims to shift politics away from narrow identity appeals.
  
• Debate about scope: Legal commentators note that while the High Court criticised caste-centric rallies, it did not impose a complete ban. The government order therefore raises a new question: can the executive prohibit an entire category of rallies, rather than regulate them case-by-case?
  

The larger constitutional question

India’s Constitution protects:

• the right to free speech and expression;
  
• the right to assemble peacefully without arms.
  

These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions for public order, decency, and the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Supreme Court has said protests are central to democracy but cannot indefinitely block public spaces, and authorities may regulate time, place and manner of gatherings. It has also upheld the use of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when there is a real risk to public order. 

The core issue, then, is proportionality: are the restrictions narrow and necessary, or are they broad and sweeping in a way that curbs legitimate speech and peaceful assembly?

Different Viewpoints: Courts, Government and Public

Government’s view (stated or implied through actions):

• Caste appeals harden social divisions and distract from development and law-and-order priorities.
  
• Removing caste labels from public records and spaces will promote equality and reduce identity-based mobilisation.
  
• A categorical curb on caste-based rallies will prevent tensions and pre-empt clashes. 

Courts’ view (from recent guidance and past rulings):

• Public order matters, and the State can regulate protests through time, place, and manner rules.
  
• However, courts have repeatedly stressed that peaceful protest is a constitutional right, and blanket bans are suspect unless the State shows clear, evidence-based necessity.
  

How the protesters and critics see it

• Voice for the marginalised: Caste remains a social reality with unequal outcomes. Community gatherings and rallies are often the only way to raise issues like reservation implementation, discrimination in hiring, and violence. A total ban could silence these concerns.
  
• Selective chill: Critics fear selective enforcement. If “caste-based” is defined loosely, routine community events or meetings could be stopped or policed, while other identity-based events continue.
  
• Wrong target: Instead of banning rallies, they argue the State should act against hate speech, threats, and violence, and should facilitate peaceful, lawful assemblies with clear ground rules.
  

The balanced approach 

1) Replace blanket bans with clear “time, place, manner” rules

• Allow peaceful rallies by pre-registration, fixed routes, sound limits, and finite hours.
  
• Create designated protest zones in each district, as guided by the Supreme Court in earlier rulings on managing assemblies.
  

2) Narrow the definition, target the harm

• Define “unlawful mobilisation” as calls to violence, forced attendance, obstruction of essential services, or explicit hate speech.
  
• Train police to separate identity expression (which is lawful) from incitement or intimidation (which is unlawful).
  

3) Keep records clean but retain community data where relevant

• Do not print caste labels on routine public formats or signages.
  
• Permit caste to be recorded only where investigation or welfare delivery requires it, with strict access controls.
  

4) Safeguard equal political opportunity

• Issue neutral guidelines that apply to all identity-based gatherings (religion, language, region), not caste alone, to avoid viewpoint bias.
  
• Make police publish reasons for any denial and allow quick appeal to a district review board.
  

5) Dialogue and monitoring

• Set up a civil society–police liaison committee in each district to plan routes and de-escalate tensions.
  
• Publish a monthly dashboard on applications, permissions granted, denials, and reasons. Transparency discourages selective use.
  

6) Invest in long-term equality

• Parallel to regulation, expand education, jobs, and anti-discrimination enforcement so that the demand for noisy street mobilisation reduces naturally over time.
  

Conclusion — regulation, not silencing

Uttar Pradesh is trying to lower temperature on caste politics. The goal of equality and calm is sound. But blanket prohibitions risk shrinking constitutional space for peaceful assembly and speech. The wiser path is narrow, well-defined regulation that targets harmful conduct (incitement, coercion, obstruction), keeps public records neutral, and protects the right to peaceful protest with clear, even-handed procedures. That approach serves both order and justice.

Exam hook 

Key take-aways

• UP has moved beyond the High Court’s directions by banning caste-based political rallies and cleaning public records of caste labels.
  
• Rights are not absolute; courts allow regulation but expect proportionality and non-discrimination.
  
• A blanket ban risks silencing legitimate, peaceful mobilisation by disadvantaged groups.
  
• The middle path: neutral, time-place-manner rules; narrow focus on incitement and obstruction; clean records; transparent permissions; dialogue and data.
  

UPSC Mains question

“Curbing identity-based polarisation is a valid goal, but blanket bans on rallies risk chilling constitutional freedoms.”
Discuss with reference to the recent Uttar Pradesh order on caste-based mobilisation and the Allahabad High Court’s guidance. 

One-line wrap

Tame hate and coercion—do not mute peaceful voices; regulate fairly, record neutrally, and keep the streets open to both order and rights.