The protestors had spilled over from Jantar Mantar and occupied Parliament Street. A famous restaurant on that street, an apparent favourite of Rahul Gandhi’s too, was closed for business. Its restive staff was lined on the pavement, smoking, chattering, and judging. Some felt that the issue had been ‘politicised’; that ‘others’ had joined the protests. “They are not students, or if they are, they never sat for the NEET exam,” some said. “If it’s about education, why are they talking about other things?” said others.I realised that there has evolved a two-fold eligibility test to be a protestor in New India. There is a marked shift in expectations, and also in law. Part oneIn a democracy, common sense dictates deference to the will of the people. The ‘will of the people’ can be manipulated but still requires engagement. However, present-day discourse begins by first questioning the legitimacy of people. ‘Do you represent the majority view? No? Does that not make you anti-national, not-legitimate people? The burden of proof is on the people to first establish that they are worthy citizens before asking for an audience with the leadership. Astonishingly, constitutional courts have also made oral remarks questioning petitioners’ ‘peoplehood’ and consequently their locus to invoke rights. The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) movement began by reappropriating one such slur and turning it on its head. It is important then for it to also address the question of the legitimacy of people, all people. It requires a broader vision of politics and a place for all people in it. On the same day that the Supreme Court of India initially refused to hear a plea relating to the disproportionate use of force at the protest, and described the petition as a ‘waste of time’, I saw a reporter grilling a young protestor, asking him if he thought anti-nationals like Umar Khalid deserved a trial. Also read: To Those Who Stood When I Did Not, I am SorryThe most common response, at least during the protests, had been: this protest is not about Umar Khalid or Sharjeel Imam. But I think it is – in the final analysis, it is about restoring the balance of power between all citizens and the government. It is about questioning the relentless attempts to disenfranchise, delegitimise and dehumanise some.The government knows that too, and that might explain criminal action specifically against some protestors who were seen carrying banners demanding Umar Khalid’s freedom. They had not limited themselves to the issue of education alone, but were conceptually equating all protests, something that the CJP leadership had struggled with at times. The test of legitimacy is not a cakewalk. The other group of people the state seems most upset with are those who made fun. To ridicule power is to also restore balance. Part twoThe second-part of the test is to respond successfully to the bureaucratisation of protests. First show your eligibility – are you directly affected? Next, come with one complaint at a time – this can’t be a single-window clearing house for complaints. No random sloganeering, no broad-based concerns.New India has produced a hustle economy. You are suspect if you empathise with or participate in a cause that does not directly affect you. Some suggest the narrow-focus education issue is being hijacked and politicised, as if fund cuts in public education, privatisation, the rewriting of history, motivated changes in curriculums exist in silos and can be challenged without invoking the worldview they stem from.It appears that there is an access protocol for public spaces. Imagine concentric circles of people. At the centre are those model citizens who never ask questions of the government and instead berate those who do. Then there are those who may have protested on specific issues, but come from ‘good backgrounds’ and are able to show past support of the government i.e., they are not ideologically, inherently opposed to it. They can come back to the fold if their ‘single-point issue’ is amicably resolved. Finally, there are those who are perennially suspect: the Muslim, the Kashmiri, the anti-CAA protester, the ‘urban Naxal’, the farmer, the Adivasi, the Dalit. Those are outlying circles, which must not be allowed to pollute protests on middle-ground issues like paper leaks.Initially, strategically perhaps, the CJP seemed to have aligned with this logic, even rationing out permissible slogans, but organically, emotionally, the movement went beyond momentary strategic thinking. The slogans could not be contained. It remains to be seen whether the government will double down on this and create a wedge between what is permissible protest, at a stretch, and what is absolutely not. The wedgeIt is evidently not permissible for protestors to be less than civil. Several young women have learnt that to their detriment.The political dog-whistles and the consequent social perception of what is legitimate and what constitutes disruptions is often endorsed by the courts, in the same unquestioning terms. In this case, when the matter was finally heard by the Supreme Court, the state said that it will not pursue criminal action against genuine students, but it will investigate those with past criminal antecedents. The court agreed to it without demur. The state thus created two neat categories of people: the virgin protestor (from good backgrounds) and the habitual protestor. A third category comprising the violent, state-aligned, counter-protester, who threatens and assaults protestors, on camera, is not even under consideration, for any potential criminal action. We must limit ourselves to the first-time protestors and the veterans. Criminalising sustained dissentWhy should the state wish to prosecute those with criminal antecedents, if there is no allegation against them of violent behaviour at the protest itself? The state’s logic seeks to separate the virgins from the veterans. There would very likely be vindictive criminal cases pending against those who have taken part in earlier protests. The unsubstantiated accusations seem serious at first blush, but are really quite conjectural and broad-based, often bordering on the outlandish. They might range from petty misdemeanours such as breach of Section 144 orders, or damaging of property, to more grave-sounding allegations such as ‘conspiracy to murder’ law enforcement officials, by participating in protest action. The state believes – and the court seems to agree – that those who have protested before have failed the eligibility test: they have too many complaints, hence they are not genuine. Also, they have protested against the government before, hence they are habitual troublemakers, too negative, never happy. Sustained opposition to the government is suspect and cannot be considered legitimate. There would also be those, given the volume and diversity of the crowd, who might have other criminal cases pending against them, unrelated to any previous protest. But what of it? There were working class men, migrant workers, Muslim and Dalit youth in the protest. Each such group is admittedly burdened with a disproportionate number of criminal cases. Should the underclass never protest? How does somebody with a pending criminal case against them, but who participated peaceably in the protest compare with someone who may not have criminal antecedents, but repeatedly threatened, or actually hurt protestors? The government’s focus is on criminalising sustained dissent and establishing socially-recognised legitimacy protocols, not on investigating the brutal violence during the protest. It will not investigate agents-provocateur, the incognito men wielding lathis, the mysterious appearance of a truck-full of stones amidst the crowds, or the private militias, who even advertise themselves on social media. Finally, there is always the figure of the Muslim. The state has to only point to him in the shadows, to discredit any movement. There was one petition by a protest volunteer named Junaid, alleging police harassment, which was the common refrain in all the petitions too, that had been called alongside. However, the state took a different preliminary view of this petition, suggesting that Junaid’s actions in organising food for the protestors merited a more in-depth enquiry into his means and motivations. It did not have any similar concerns about other volunteers or indeed the leaders. Muslims seem to increasingly fail the legitimacy test even on single-issue causes. Sharukh Alam is a lawyer who practices in Delhi. A version of this essay appeared in the National Herald on July 26, 2026.