Multiple ‘Jantar Mantars’ spring up as Delhi shuts

Jantar Mantar is a well-known public protest venue in central New Delhi. It matters because demonstrations held there can attract public attention, journalists and political scrutiny. The article identifies it as the planned protest site, but does not explain its history or legal status in detail. That background comes from established knowledge about Delhi’s protest spaces.

On October 10, hundreds of protesters tried to reach Jantar Mantar. They came in large groups of 100 to 200 under different youth-organisation banners, while smaller groups included women and children. Police stopped them, detained them and placed them on buses. Some were taken more than 30 kilometres away to Rajiv Gandhi Stadium in Bawana.

The crackdown meant that Jantar Mantar could not function as the main gathering point that day. Demonstrators shifted activities to Raj Ghat, Nangloi, Safdarjung flyover, Dilli Haat and detention centres. These alternative sites kept protests visible despite heavy barricading, closures and restrictions in central Delhi.

The phrase ‘Jantar Mantar 2.0’ described an improvised protest network rather than one official new venue. Protesters used other parts of Delhi after police barricaded central areas and prevented groups from reaching Jantar Mantar. It mattered because the demonstrations continued even when the intended site was inaccessible.

At Raj Ghat, Disha Students’ Organisation, Naujawan Bharat Sabha and RWPI held a protest attended by more than 150 people. At Bawana, detainees sang protest songs and discussed alleged Election Commission irregularities. SFI members also held a lecture there on ‘India under undeclared Emergency’. At Nangloi, Rajya Sabha member A.A. Rahim announced ‘Jantar Mantar 2.0’ and began a hunger strike.

These locations turned detention centres and public spaces into temporary protest platforms. The article does not state that authorities formally recognised them as protest sites. It shows instead how protesters adapted their methods while police restrictions remained in force.

The demonstrations ranged from small groups of four or five to larger gatherings of 100 to 200 people. More than 150 protesters attended the Raj Ghat action organised by Disha Students’ Organisation, Naujawan Bharat Sabha and RWPI. The article does not provide one combined figure for everyone detained across Delhi, so the total scale of detention cannot be calculated from the report.

Police stopped protesters near Jantar Mantar, bundled them into buses and took them towards the city’s outskirts. Protesters at Raj Ghat were transported to Rajiv Gandhi Stadium in Bawana, described as more than 30 kilometres from Jantar Mantar. At least 12 people, including Indian Youth Congress members and two advocates, were detained from Raisina Road.

Other detainees included UPSC aspirants and an autorickshaw driver who said they were not attending the protest. Several people were reportedly held until late at night. The figures show both sizeable demonstrations and wide-ranging detention, but not a complete citywide count.

Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is a legal provision allowing an authorised magistrate to issue temporary written orders when urgent action is considered necessary to prevent danger, public disorder, nuisance or obstruction. It can restrict gatherings and other conduct in a defined area. This general legal explanation comes from established knowledge; the article itself records only the announcement and its effects.

Across central Delhi, loudspeakers announced that Section 163 was in place. Citizens were told to follow police directions and maintain law and order. Police also used barricades and heavy deployment, while metro stations, schools, colleges and markets remained closed. Protesters trying to reach Jantar Mantar were stopped and detained.

Such orders can make an intended public meeting difficult or impossible during their stated period. They do not, by themselves, explain every police action reported in the article. The report records allegations of excessive force, while police officers said they also suffered injuries during detentions.

When police stopped the protesters, they detained them, bundled them into buses and drove them away from central Delhi. The immediate consequence was loss of access to Jantar Mantar and separation from the planned demonstration. Protesters described aggressive handling, while police officers claimed they also received injuries to their arms and legs.

Near Safdarjung flyover, people tried to stop a bus carrying detainees, including AISA president Neha Bora. Police pushed them away and used batons, according to the report. Protesters described people being pulled by their hands and legs, thrown onto pavements, punched inside buses and handled aggressively. One person, Aragya, reportedly suffered a twisted leg and was admitted to a hospital.

Detainees continued protesting inside buses, singing songs and holding discussions at Bawana. A retired professor and students held a public lecture there. At least 12 people detained from Raisina Road remained in custody until late night, while others said they had not been attending the protest.

The demonstrations involved several youth and student groups. Disha Students’ Organisation, Naujawan Bharat Sabha and RWPI organised the Raj Ghat protest. SFI held a public lecture at Bawana, while AISA president Neha Bora was among those in a detention bus. Indian Youth Congress members were among those detained on Raisina Road.

Delhi Police and paramilitary forces sealed central Delhi, erected barricades, stopped protesters and transported detainees. Police officers also claimed that they suffered injuries. Protesters, however, alleged excessive force, manhandling, illegal seizure of phones and bags, and misconduct toward women students. The article also notes that some officers had no name tags.

Rajya Sabha member A.A. Rahim announced ‘Jantar Mantar 2.0’, sang the national anthem and began a hunger strike. He demanded action against Inspector Pawan Tomar and the return of phones and bags. Two advocates were among at least 12 Raisina Road detainees, showing legal professionals were also caught in the crackdown.

India’s constitutional framework protects citizens’ ability to assemble peacefully, but that right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed for public order and related public interests. Authorities may therefore limit a gathering when a lawful order is issued and applied within its scope. This constitutional explanation uses established legal knowledge; the article focuses on how restrictions operated in Delhi.

In the reported crackdown, loudspeakers announced Section 163 of the BNSS, and police told citizens to follow directions. Central Delhi was barricaded, transport and public institutions were closed, and people trying to reach Jantar Mantar were detained. Protesters shifted to Raj Ghat, Nangloi and other locations instead.

The central issue is proportionality: restrictions should address a genuine public-order need without unnecessary force or blanket interference. The article records protesters’ allegations of brutal handling and illegal seizure of belongings, alongside police claims of injuries. It leaves those competing accounts unresolved, while showing how emergency restrictions can reshape public protest.