SC seeks Centre, Delhi Police response on Jantar Mantar protest site's de-notification

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the Centre and the Delhi Police in response to a petition challenging an October 11 order that de-notified Jantar Mantar as a designated demonstration site and named three alternative venues.

Under an October 11 standing order issued by Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, Jantar Mantar was de-notified, while the Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground, and the CBD Ground in east Delhi were designated as the new venues for public demonstrations.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked orally that it would review whether authorities had properly considered the efficacy and continued use of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.


Also read: Jantar Mantar denotified as protest site, Delhi designates three new venues

Representing petitioner advocate Swaty Singh, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan requested the restoration of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest area, arguing that its de-notification purported to rely on a prior Supreme Court directive.

Refuting this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the earlier top court ruling was not the ground for the recent de-notification. He stated that a specially constituted committee had evaluated the issue and submitted a report outlining its specific reasons.

Senior advocate Mukta Gupta emphasized that a designated venue must allow demonstrators to effectively convey their message, prompting Justice Bagchi to remark that the issue must also be evaluated alongside modern technological developments.

Addressing arguments that Jantar Mantar's location near key government establishments remains crucial, the bench indicated it would seek the State's response on the raised concerns. Furthermore, the court directed the Delhi Police to produce all prohibitory orders issued over the last fortnight under Section 163 of the BNSS (formerly Section 144 of the CrPC) and ordered all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and digital evidence connected to recent protests.

The petition contends that relocating demonstrations to peripheral areas undermines the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. It argues that the right to protest extends beyond gathering at an assigned physical space; it fundamentally includes the ability to voice grievances, register dissent, and draw the focus of public authorities and society to pressing issues.

“The location of a protest is, therefore, not an inconsequential administrative consideration,” the plea stressed, noting that public accessibility, visibility, and proximity to targeted institutions directly dictate a demonstration's impact.

Calling the standing order arbitrary and procedurally flawed, the petition added: “A notification which withdraws an existing venue can't be regarded as preserving the right to protest merely because alternative locations have been identified, particularly when the detailed arrangements governing access to those locations are left to a subsequent standard operating procedure.”