Comments A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, while dismissing the review petition on its ‘Right to Protest’ judgment observed as follows: “The constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties. The right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent/protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public place affecting rights of others.” Notwithstanding the constitutional underpinnings of the ‘right to protest’, the question is: why is an act of protest considered a practical, effective, and much preferred tool for bringing about social change?