Mass detentions, internet shutdowns and movement curbs during protests raise concerns about the routine use of exceptional public-order powers. Examine the constitutional and procedural safeguards that should govern action under Section 163 of the BNSS. (250 words)

Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), replacing Section 144 CrPC, is an exceptional preventive power. Its use must reconcile public order with peaceful democratic dissent and personal liberty.

- Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) protect speech and peaceful assembly, subject only to reasonable, legally authorised restrictions. - Article 21 requires a restriction on liberty to be just, fair and reasonable; proportionality demands that the measure be suitable, necessary and least restrictive. - Section 163 should address a specific, imminent threat of obstruction, danger or disturbance—not operate as a blanket ban on criticism or assembly across an entire city. - Orders must record concrete material, define their territorial and temporal scope, and remain open to judicial review.

- A person deprived of liberty must be informed of the grounds of detention at the earliest opportunity, as emphasised in Article 22 jurisprudence. - Police cannot evade arrest safeguards by describing custody as temporary detention or preventive restraint. - Detainees should be told the legal authority, grounds and place of custody; records must identify the detaining officer and time of release. - Production before a magistrate within 24 hours applies where the restraint amounts to arrest, subject to constitutionally valid preventive-detention exceptions. - Legal assistance, access to family and medical care strengthen protection against arbitrary custody.

- Prefer negotiated protest sites, traffic diversions and crowd-management measures before curfew-like restrictions, internet shutdowns or mass pickup. - Apply restrictions uniformly and distinguish peaceful participants from persons committing cognisable offences. - Detaining people far from the protest site, including journalists, lawyers or political leaders, requires an individualised legal basis. - Independent complaints mechanisms, body-worn-camera records and prompt review can deter excessive force and improve accountability.

- Require written reasons and periodic review for every Section 163 order. - Publish aggregate data on detentions, grounds, duration and releases. - Train police and executive magistrates in constitutional policing, de-escalation and digital-rights standards. - Courts should test whether restrictions are evidence-based, time-bound and proportionate rather than accepting public-order claims mechanically.

Section 163 BNSS; Article 19; Article 21; Article 22; proportionality; preventive detention; peaceful assembly; constitutional policing; judicial review