PB Mehta spoke about this paradoxical situation of dissent in a democracy & spoke about how dissent gets normative value when formal processes cease to be truly representative. Thinking about this about in the context of 2 major protests of recent times - CAA and Farmers protests https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1334844226589261827

As a person who watched almost the entire debates in Parliament on #CAA (nearly 12 hrs each in LS &RS), I can tell that the legislative process was a sheer show of majority strength, without showing interest to meaningfully engage with the concerns of opposition.

The Speaker and RS Chairman often used their discretionary powers to curtail questions. And when the outside protests happened after CAA enactment, the govt demonized and alienated the protesters(Remember PM's 'identify by clothes' remark).

It is undeniable that there was widespread citizen participation cutting across all divides in CAA protests. Yet there was no attempt by govt to engage.
Next, the Court was approached. But the SC didn't show urgency in hearing the anti-CAA petitions.

The Shaheen Bagh model protests gained strength. Far from trying to engage with the protesters, the govt was vilifying it and using it as a plank to polarize. Ultimately, the judiciary too delegitimized SB protests, but without giving an answer to their questions on the law.

So, one can see the failure of formal processes in the CAA-agitation.

Similar is the story with farm laws. The Parliamentary process was sham. Even the voting was dubious. The laws were passed without the approval of major stakeholders, who later had to take to public protests.

Since a different kind of politics is involved in the farmer agitation when compared to CAA protests, the govt at least agreed for a dialogue on the contentious points.

Going by PB Mehta's @pbmehta description, these protests (CAA and farm bills) are not unilateral acts of anarchism but principled acts of dissent which stem out of the failure of formal democratic processes.