NEW DELHI, Oct. 15 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notices to the Centre and Delhi Police on a petition challenging the removal of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site, questioning whether the decision was based on an independent administrative assessment or prompted by the court's earlier observations. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi sought responses from the authorities after hearing arguments that relocating demonstrations to distant parts of the national capital could undermine citizens' constitutional rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
The court observed that the matter required consideration and indicated that it would examine the government's justification before deciding the next course of action. The development comes days after Delhi Police removed Jantar Mantar from the list of officially designated protest venues and identified three alternative locations for demonstrations. During the hearing, the Bench questioned whether the authorities had relied on oral observations made by the Supreme Court or independently examined the suitability of Jantar Mantar as a protest venue. The judges sought clarification on whether the decision reflected a considered assessment of the site's effectiveness and suitability for public demonstrations.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, maintained that the decision was not based on the court's earlier observations. He informed the Bench that a committee had been constituted before the court's intervention and that it had submitted a detailed report recommending alternative venues. The submission was significant because Delhi Police had earlier told the Delhi High Court that Jantar Mantar was de-notified following the Supreme Court's October 9 order. The differing explanations brought the decision-making process under judicial scrutiny.
Senior advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the constitutional right to peaceful protest could not be rendered ineffective by relocating demonstrations to areas far removed from the institutions they sought to address. She submitted that a protest venue should be sufficiently close to the country's administrative and political institutions for demonstrators to communicate their grievances effectively. Gupta referred to the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan case, which recognised the importance of balancing the right to protest with public order and the rights of other citizens. She argued that the central administrative areas of New Delhi could not be treated as spaces reserved exclusively for those exercising governmental authority. Justice Bagchi observed that the meaning of being heard could also be considered in the context of modern technology. However, the Bench agreed that the constitutional arguments raised by the petitioners deserved examination.
The judges said the government would first be given an opportunity to explain the rationale behind the decision. Delhi Police issued a standing order on October 11 removing Jantar Mantar's status as a designated protest site. The order identified three alternative venues for public demonstrations: Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground in north Delhi and CBD Ground in east Delhi. According to the authorities, the decision followed recommendations made by a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to examine suitable locations for protests. The removal ended Jantar Mantar's longstanding role as one of the capital's principal venues for demonstrations. The site, located close to Parliament and several important government institutions, has hosted protests by farmers, students, workers, civil society organisations and political groups for decades.
Its proximity to the seat of government has been a central feature of its importance as a place for public dissent. The petitioners have argued that the alternative locations, particularly those situated farther from central Delhi, could reduce the visibility and effectiveness of demonstrations. The controversy followed proceedings before the Supreme Court on October 9, when the Bench asked authorities to reconsider the existing arrangements for holding protests at Jantar Mantar. The court had observed that Delhi required a suitable location where citizens could demonstrate peacefully without compromising public safety, emergency access or the rights of residents. It suggested that authorities consider identifying a larger, better-equipped venue with appropriate facilities for demonstrators.
Following those observations, Delhi Police issued the order de-notifying Jantar Mantar. During proceedings before the Delhi High Court on October 13, police representatives said the decision had been taken in accordance with the Supreme Court's earlier directions. However, the Centre's submission on Thursday that the decision resulted from a previously constituted committee's recommendations has raised questions about the precise basis for the administrative action. The Supreme Court has now sought a formal explanation. The de-notification has also been challenged before the Delhi High Court by Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib. The organisation had earlier sought permission to hold a demonstration at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
After Delhi Police denied permission, the Youth Congress approached the High Court seeking reconsideration of the decision. The subsequent removal of Jantar Mantar's status as a designated protest site prompted the organisation to challenge the new order as well. The Youth Congress has argued that the authorities must examine whether security and traffic concerns can be addressed through reasonable restrictions rather than effectively excluding demonstrations from the location. The High Court has issued notice on the request for reconsideration and is scheduled to hear the matter on November 17.
Thursday's proceedings took place alongside hearings on several petitions arising from recent protests in Delhi against the Election Commission's electoral-roll revision exercise. The Supreme Court also sought responses from the Election Commission and its senior officials on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other Opposition leaders challenging aspects of the revision process. Separate matters concerning police action against protesters and restrictions on public movement were also before the court. In proceedings related to the protests, the Bench directed law enforcement agencies to preserve relevant CCTV footage. The challenge to Jantar Mantar's de-notification raises a distinct constitutional issue concerning the extent to which authorities may regulate the location of public demonstrations. While governments have the authority to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and safety, the petitioners contend that such regulation must not make the exercise of fundamental rights ineffective.
The Supreme Court has not stayed the de-notification order. Its decision to issue notices means the legality of the measure remains under examination. The Centre and Delhi Police will now be required to explain the administrative grounds for removing Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues, including the committee's recommendations and the assessment underlying the decision.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.