It is only when someone is basically convicted of an offence that you can conclusively say that they took portion in a prison action for the duration of a protest – until then the presumption of innocence would use.
For these a person to be denied a federal government work, or a passport or any of the other items the Bihar Law enforcement have indicated will be affected by the accusation of felony involvement, are not able to in any way be realistic. As soon as they have really been convicted by a court docket of regulation, the argument that this is truthful point to do will become more feasible.
The doctrine of unconstitutional problems is an proven concept in the US courts, but not seriously in the Indian context. Apart from the concurring belief in the Xaviers scenario (alone not the majority impression), it has not been especially cited as a ground to strike down govt policy in any other judgments.
This does not mean the argument is untenable, just that there is no assurance that a courtroom would sense certain by it.
Support for the argument could perhaps be found in some other scenarios of the Supreme Court docket, this kind of as various of the court’s judgments on push independence which search at whether or not the government was striving to indirectly infringe the ideal to independence of speech that journalists have by imposing problems on circulation, readership or revenues.
There is also the basic administrative legislation basic principle that what cannot be carried out directly, can not be carried out indirectly, which could be employed to argue that these are tries to restrain protests and dissent in a roundabout way.