Following a violent clash in Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, on November 24, 2024, the district administration passed an order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), preventing any outsider from entering the district and declaring it a ‘sensitive area’. Thereafter, the Leader of Opposition (‘LOP’), Rahul Gandhi, announced that he was stopped from visiting the district and meet the victims’ families. This is similar to the time the Uttar Pradesh government stopped legislators belonging to the Indian National Congress party from visiting Hathras in the aftermath of the heinous rape and caste atrocity incident in 2020. In 2021, when Rahul Gandhi attempted to visit Lakhimpur Kheri following the massacre of farmers in the wake of the farmer’s protests, he was similarly prevented from doing so by the state government.The practice of preventing elected representatives from opposition parties from visiting such areas is not exclusive to the Uttar Pradesh government or the Bharatiya Janata Party ruled states. When BJP leaders sought to visit Sandeshkhali in West Bengal after reports emerged of widespread sexual harassment incidents in the region,, they were stopped by the state police on the pretext of public order.
I argue that elected representatives should be permitted access to sensitive areas where general public entry is prohibited and should be provided differential treatment when it comes to access. A failure to do so and an insistence on the complete prohibition of entry fails to consider the principles of legitimate expectations and proportionality. A more nuanced and well considered approach might be to regulate these visits more closely.
