The city has been witnessing Generation Z’s growing assertion in the past few months. Its challenge to the establishment is no longer confined just to the streets. The young are also taking their battles to the classrooms, demanding accountability of those in charge. They are moving the courts too, questioning government rulesand seeking remedies through the institutions of democracy.
When we talk of courtroom interventions, it’s not merely about heavyweight lawyers such as Kapil Sibal and Prashant Bhushan taking up their cause to protest. Young lawyers, law students and ordinary citizens who believe that the system must answer for its failures are approaching the bench.
A recent public interest litigation before the Delhi HC is in line with this emerging trend. The issue at stake is deceptively simple, when a consumer orders paneer, s/he be entitled to know whether what is served is genuine dairy paneer or a non-dairy substitute.
Last week, a petition filed by a 22-year-old fourth-year law student, and her senior from school, a practising advocate, brought a question of food safety, consumer rights and nutritional transparency before the court. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Union government, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Delhi government, seeking their responses.
The significance of this intervention extends beyond the merits of the food labelling dispute. For a generation increasingly conscious of nutrition, protein intake and healthy eating, the ingredients of everyday food matter. Consumers who choose paneer as a source of protein expect a milk-based product. If a restaurant serves a substitute made with vegetable fats, starches or other non-dairy ingredients without adequate disclosure, the consumer’s choice is compromised.
The petitioners are not seeking a blanket prohibition on lawful dairy analogues or plant-based alternatives. Their argument is about transparency, products should be sold and served for what they actually are, allowing consumers to make informed decisions.
Rather than merely expressing dissatisfaction on social media or joining a street demonstration, the two young legal professionals have approached a constitutional institution to seek a legal remedy. They have taken up an everyday concern and translated it into a question of public accountability.
This is precisely where Gen Z’s emerging political character deserves attention. Its activism does not always fit the conventional mould of party politics, ideological mobilisation or mass movements organised around a single leader. It can begin with an individual experience, a grievance encountered in daily life or a concern shared by a community. It then finds expression through whichever forum offers a possibility of redress.
The courtroom is a natural extension of this approach. The Constitution and the legal system provide avenues through which citizens can question administrative inaction, challenge rules and seek enforcement of existing rights. Young lawyerscan become intermediaries between public grievances and institutional remedies. They have the means to turn dissatisfaction into a structured legal challenge.
Food transparency is only one such issue. Women’s safety is another. The growing participation of young women in protests has demonstrated that concerns about safety and dignity are no longer being expressed only as private anxieties. They are becoming collective demands for institutional responsibility. This assertion is increasingly experience-led, with young women converting everyday insecurities into a public demand for change.
Such concerns can travel from the streets and social media to courts, commissions and other public institutions. The same impulse may eventually be directed at failures in urban governance, environmental protection, public services, education and consumer affairs. The specific grievances may differ but the underlying demand remains same, that institutions must explain and those responsible must be held accountable.
The establishment would be mistaken to dismiss this as youthful impatience or a passing phase of digital-era activism. Governments can see these as opportunities to correct systemic shortcomings, engage with young citizens and strengthen public trust. Otherwise these grievances would spread across multiple forums and acquire greater legitimacy than a street protest.
Sidharth Mishra
Author and president, Centre for Reforms, Development & Justice