BJP states used breach of promise to act against student protesters

Old law, new crackdown

At least three BJP-ruled states have invoked a rarely-used colonial-era law — 'breach of promise' — to register cases against student protesters in recent weeks. The move has sparked sharp criticism from civil liberties groups and the opposition, who call it a draconian tactic to stifle dissent.

The cases were filed under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cheating by deception, specifically 'breach of promise'. Police in these states allege that student leaders promised to hold peaceful protests but then violated the conditions, thereby 'cheating' the authorities.

States in focus

Sources indicate that the provision was used in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Karnataka. In each instance, student groups had obtained permission to demonstrate against a central government policy. When the protests turned unruly or continued beyond permitted hours, police slapped them with breach of promise charges.

Legal experts point out that the provision is typically reserved for commercial fraud, not public protests. 'Using breach of promise against protesters is a stretch. It shows the state is scrambling for legal tools to suppress peaceful dissent,' said a senior Supreme Court lawyer on condition of anonymity.

CJP warns of action

The Campus Joint Platform (CJP), an umbrella body of student unions, has reacted sharply. The CJP said the Supreme Court order allowing FIRs to continue is 'wholly unacceptable'. It warned that if any student faces action, the CJP will restart protests across the country.

Assam, however, has taken a different route. The state government announced it will withdraw cases against CJP protesters, signalling a possible rift within the BJP on how to handle the student unrest. The CJP described the Assam move as 'a step in the right direction' but demanded similar action from other states.

The larger trend

This is not the first time BJP states have used obscure legal provisions against protesters. In 2023, several states used the National Security Act against farmers. Critics argue that the party is systematically weaponising the law to target dissent.

The CJP has described the breach of promise cases as 'uninformed and unacceptable'. It claims that the Supreme Court order contradicts a prior government assurance that no student would face legal action. The student body has given the government a 48-hour deadline to clarify its position.

With the CJP threatening to restart protests, the political stakes are high. The government, caught between the judiciary and the street, will have to decide whether to escalate or de-escalate.

All eyes are now on the next Supreme Court hearing, scheduled for next week. The court is expected to examine whether breach of promise can be applied to protest cases, a decision that could set a precedent for how dissent is policed in India.