Jantar Mantar permission denied due to CJP protest violence on July 20: Delhi Police to SC

Delhi Police said it denied permission for the October 10 CJP protest because of earlier violence, expected crowd-control problems, and severe disruption in central Delhi. The police also said the organisers had only sent an intimation, not formally sought permission.

Despite the denial and prohibitory orders, people attempted to gather at Jantar Mantar. Police removed those who had gathered illegally and detained them temporarily. The commissioner said detainees later punctured the tyres of buses used to transport them and broke window shields.

The detainees were released after a few hours, once detention was no longer required. Police said they were held in makeshift centres, not lock-ups, and received meals. Political leaders were offered rooms in station house officers’ chambers, along with refreshments, while their dignity was maintained, according to the affidavit.

Delhi Police linked the denial to earlier events because it said those events showed the risks of allowing another large protest. The commissioner described the organisation as having a recent history of mob violence and said supporters had previously been difficult for organisers to control.

Police pointed to violence during the July 20 protests, including injuries to several people. It also cited marches from October 6 to 8, which it said choked central Delhi for days. The affidavit described aggressive gatherings, harassment of police, and misbehaviour toward women officers.

The stated concern was therefore both safety and public access. Police said traffic jams lasted for long hours and disrupted students, citizens, train passengers, and airline travellers. Against that background, it argued that permitting the October 10 protest could create another serious public-order problem.

Jantar Mantar is a historic astronomical observatory in New Delhi, known for large instruments used to study the sky. In modern times, the site is also associated with public demonstrations. That combination makes it a visible and politically important place for gatherings.

The source does not explain Jantar Mantar’s history or define the site. It does say the relevant central Delhi area contains Rashtrapati Bhavan, Parliament, the Supreme Court, embassies, and other institutions. These locations require extensive security planning and careful management of public movement.

That sensitivity does not automatically end the right to demonstrate. It does mean police may assess crowd size, behaviour, traffic, and risks to nearby institutions before granting permission. In this case, police said past violence and recent congestion made a gathering at Jantar Mantar unsafe and disruptive.

The article’s headline refers to curbs involving 45 metro stations. Its body does not explain whether all 45 stations were closed, partially restricted, or affected in another way. That distinction matters because the scale of a metro measure determines how widely commuters are affected.

The police affidavit separately reported injuries to over a dozen police personnel. It attributed the injuries to aggressive gatherings, physical harassment of officers, and misbehaviour by some people toward women police personnel. Police also described long traffic snarls across central Delhi.

Together, these figures show why authorities presented the protests as a citywide management problem rather than a local event. However, the article gives no station-by-station breakdown or exact injury total. The confirmed wording is “45 stations” in the headline and “over a dozen” injured officers in the report.

A prohibitory order is a legal restriction on gathering in a specified place or period. When people assemble despite such an order, police can remove them and detain them temporarily to enforce the restriction and prevent further disorder. The article says police relied on established Supreme Court law when taking this action.

Before October 10, police said intelligence inputs indicated that people might gather despite the denial. They therefore took preventive measures and placed prohibitory orders at the site. After people attempted to protest, officers removed them and transported some detainees in buses.

The detention was not described as permanent punishment. Police said all detainees were released after a few hours, once the need for detention ended. They were kept in makeshift centres rather than police lock-ups. The affidavit also says political leaders received refreshments in station house officers’ chambers.

Public demonstrations can affect people far beyond the protest site when roads or transit services are restricted. A large security operation may slow traffic, divert vehicles, or limit metro access. The result can be missed classes, appointments, trains, and flights, even for people uninvolved in the protest.

Police said marches from October 6 to 8 completely choked parts of central Delhi. It reported huge traffic snarls lasting for long hours. Students and innocent citizens were allegedly stuck in traffic, with some missing their trains or airlines. The headline also refers to curbs involving 45 metro stations.

These effects explain why police described public inconvenience as part of its justification for denying permission. At the same time, restrictions can make travel harder for commuters and protest supporters. Authorities must therefore balance security needs with clear planning, limited measures, and protection for ordinary movement.

A constitutional right to peaceful assembly allows people to gather without violence and express political or public concerns. The government’s public-order responsibility requires it to protect safety, traffic, institutions, and other citizens. This balance is central when authorities decide whether, where, and under what conditions a protest can occur.

The source does not discuss constitutional doctrine directly. It describes police concerns about violence, injuries, aggressive crowds, blocked roads, and security around Parliament, the Supreme Court, embassies, and other institutions. Police said it denied permission because these risks were unusually serious.

In practice, public-order measures should respond to specific risks rather than simply suppress peaceful expression. The article records police action against gatherings held despite prohibitory orders, followed by short detention and release. It also records the police claim that the protest call and recent events created a dangerous situation requiring preventive action.