A Mumbai Palestine solidarity event highlights the scrutiny that flags, slogans and public gatherings can face.
India’s support for Palestine does not remove legal restrictions on public assemblies or specific alleged offences.
Recent cases show the distinction between Palestine solidarity and allegations of support for Hamas can become contested.
A Palestine solidarity event in Mumbai has brought into focus a question that has surfaced repeatedly in India: how can displaying a Palestinian flag, writing “Free Palestine” or organising a public event attract police scrutiny when New Delhi has long supported the Palestinian cause?
The question sharpened after activists associated with the Indian People in Solidarity with Palestine (IPSP) alleged that Mumbai Police harassed and detained them after they took part in a September 15 kite-flying event organised in solidarity with Palestinian children. The September 15 event involved participants flying kites and displaying Palestinian flags and posters in solidarity with children in Gaza.
Activist Harshada alleged that plainclothes officers searched her Vakola residence, seized phones and prevented people from leaving. Police denied taking coercive action and said they were investigating information about Palestinian flags and the proposed event, which they said had not received permission. A senior officer also said police found literature and QR codes that, prima facie, appeared to be intended for donations, with an inquiry continuing, The Indian Express reported.
The episode illustrates an important distinction: support for Palestine or Palestinian civilians is not automatically the same as support for Hamas or conduct amounting to an offence. Peaceful expression can still be regulated when it takes place as a public gathering or when authorities allege that specific conduct falls outside protected political expression.
India’s support for Palestine and the Hamas distinction
India’s support for Palestinian statehood is longstanding and remains part of its foreign-policy position. The government has repeatedly backed a two-state solution and humanitarian assistance for Palestinians. The Indian Express has reported the government’s position as support for a ceasefire, humanitarian assistance and a two-state solution. That diplomatic position, however, does not create an exemption from Indian laws governing public gatherings or alleged criminal conduct.
The distinction becomes particularly important when authorities or complainants allege that Palestine solidarity has crossed into support for Hamas or another organisation subject to legal restrictions. A Palestinian flag, the words “Free Palestine” or support for Palestinian civilians do not, by themselves, establish support for Hamas. The relevant question is what an individual or organisation actually said or did and whether that conduct falls within a specific offence.
A May 2025 case in Pune illustrates how that distinction can become contested. The Indian Express reported that members of a pro-Palestine group, BDS India, were allegedly assaulted while protesting outside a Domino’s outlet. Police registered cross-complaints. One complaint alleged that the group had distributed posters supporting Hamas and had gathered without permission; the group itself complained about the alleged assault. Police said an inquiry was under way and that no arrests had been made at that stage.
The report therefore involved an allegation of Hamas support, rather than establishing that ordinary Palestine solidarity amounted to such support. Such an allegation is legally distinct from support for the Palestinian cause itself; whether an offence has occurred depends on the specific conduct alleged and the law applicable to it.
What the Constitution protects
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Political slogans, posters, flags, meetings and demonstrations can therefore fall within constitutionally protected expression.
Those rights are not absolute. Article 19 permits reasonable restrictions on specified grounds, including public order, security of the State, sovereignty and integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign States and incitement to an offence.
The Indian Express, in its legal explainer on the right to protest, notes that public demonstrations can be regulated through permission requirements and restrictions intended to maintain public order. The rules governing applications and permissions can vary between states, as public order and policing fall within the states’ responsibilities. Authorities can also impose restrictions where legally recognised concerns involving public order, security or other Article 19 grounds arise.
This creates an important practical distinction. A person displaying a Palestinian flag in a private setting is not necessarily in the same legal position as an organiser holding a large gathering on a public road. A public demonstration can involve traffic, crowd management, venue restrictions and police arrangements.
The absence of permission, therefore, can become relevant to the legality of a public gathering without making the political opinion behind that gathering unlawful. Similarly, police scrutiny or registration of a case does not by itself establish guilt.
How police scrutiny has played out
The Mumbai case is not an isolated example. In February 2026, Pune Police booked 23 activists over a Palestine-support protest held on a footpath near Jangli Maharaj Road without permission. Police described the demonstration as unauthorised, while activists alleged that they had sought permission, that it had been denied and that police had manhandled them. The Indian Express reported both versions.
The case shows how authorities can focus on the manner in which a public protest is organised rather than on the political position expressed by participants. The same distinction applies to Mumbai, where police said they were investigating the source of Palestinian flags and the proposed protest, while activists challenged the manner in which the inquiry was conducted.
Additional scrutiny can arise if authorities allege conduct outside ordinary political expression. Claims involving incitement, violence, unlawful fundraising or other offences would have to be assessed under the particular law invoked and the evidence available. An allegation, however, is not the same as a finding of guilt.
Social backlash and institutional disputes
Police intervention is only one part of the controversy. Palestine solidarity can also trigger disputes inside universities and other institutions, where questions about political activity, campus rules and competing student groups can overlap.
At the English and Foreign Languages University in Hyderabad in October 2025, students organised a rally in solidarity with Palestine, displaying Palestinian flags and posters and putting messages reading “EFLU for Palestine” on campus walls. The New Indian Express reported that the university had denied permission for the march and objected to the banners and flags. A confrontation followed after ABVP members opposed the display, with police intervening and cases subsequently being registered against students.
The episode shows how a political symbol can become the centre of an institutional dispute without the symbol itself providing a complete answer to the legal question. The relevant circumstances can include the venue, applicable rules, permission for a gathering, the conduct of participants and whether another offence is alleged.
Three issues therefore need to be kept separate. First is the right to express solidarity with Palestinians. Second is regulation of a public gathering, including permission, location and public order. Third is whether particular conduct allegedly violates another law.
India’s official support for the Palestinian cause and scrutiny of particular Palestine-related activities can consequently coexist. Foreign policy determines the position India takes towards Palestine internationally; domestic law governs what individuals and organisations may do within India.
For that reason, “Free Palestine”, a Palestinian flag or a Palestine solidarity event cannot be treated as a single legal category. The circumstances, setting, words used, conduct and evidence behind any police allegation all matter. Support for Palestinians is distinct from an allegation of support for Hamas or another organisation subject to legal restrictions. In an individual case, the legal question turns on the specific conduct alleged and the law applicable to it, rather than the political label attached to the expression.
