A thousand slogans echoed here - but it could be the end for iconic Delhi protest site

Jantar Mantar was built by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II in the 1720s as an astronomical observatory. Its better-known modern role began after demonstrations were moved from the Boat Club lawns in 1993. The site became a place where people could publicly demand action and be heard.

Its importance came from access and visibility. The road is about 3km from Parliament. Farmers, students, grieving parents, ex-soldiers and activists gathered there. Some protests were large, while others involved one person and a placard. Demonstrators held press conferences, met politicians and discussed strategies after approaching government offices.

The site also created solidarity. Rachna Dhingra’s group camped there for about five months in 2008. Dipa Sinha saw campaigns connected with major laws develop there. Delhi Police has now stopped designating Jantar Mantar for protests, raising fears that a historic outlet for public grievances will become harder to use.

Delhi Police has decided that Jantar Mantar will no longer be a designated site for demonstrations. The move changes where people can gather near Parliament, a location used for more than three decades. Police acted after the Supreme Court suggested identifying alternative sites with adequate infrastructure.

Protesters have been directed to three places. Two are far from Parliament. The third is the sprawling Ramlila Ground, which is often booked months ahead. Unlike Jantar Mantar, which is free, all three alternatives charge tens of thousands of rupees each day.

The decision follows heightened tensions after the Gen Z-led Cockroach Janta Party protest. Tens of thousands demanded Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation, and he later resigned. Police barricaded Jantar Mantar afterwards. A later march demanding the election chief’s resignation ended in a police crackdown, making the closure a significant change in protest access.

Protest activity at Jantar Mantar has continued for more than three decades. The site has hosted mass movements that shook governments, but also small demonstrations by people who arrived alone with a placard. Its scale varied greatly, yet the venue remained important because different groups could gather in one public place.

A clear example is the 2008 campaign by Rachna Dhingra and hundreds of others. They camped at Jantar Mantar for around five months while pressing for rehabilitation measures for survivors of the Bhopal gas leak. They held press conferences, met politicians and chained themselves to railings near the prime minister’s residence.

More recently, tens of thousands joined the Gen Z-led Cockroach Janta Party protest demanding Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation. He subsequently resigned. The police then barricaded the site, and a later attempted march was met with a crackdown. The closure now threatens both large movements and small, persistent protests.

Location can determine whether a protest is visible and politically useful. Jantar Mantar is about 3km from Parliament, so demonstrators could raise demands near the institutions they wanted to influence. Its position also helped people meet politicians, approach government offices and draw wider attention to causes.

Rachna Dhingra’s 2008 campaign shows the mechanism. Protesters held press conferences and met politicians at Jantar Mantar. They also demonstrated outside offices including the agriculture ministry and the former Planning Commission. After police detentions, they returned to the site to gather, discuss and plan their next steps.

The road also brought together separate causes and allowed people to build solidarity. Dhingra recalls meeting Tibetans, dam-displacement activists and lone protesters there. Moving demonstrations farther away, or into costly venues, may reduce access to officials and make it harder for ordinary groups to sustain attention. The article specifically highlights distance from Parliament and affordability as central concerns.

Jantar Mantar’s protest history began in 1993. The then-Congress government stopped allowing demonstrations at the Boat Club lawns, located opposite the old Parliament. Protesters therefore needed another recognised place to assemble and make their demands publicly.

The change was part of a longer pattern. Historian Harleen Kaur wrote that successive governments introduced new rules from the 1960s onward, shifting Delhi’s protest sites farther from Parliament. Jantar Mantar, about 3km from Parliament and near government offices, became the replacement venue for many demonstrations.

The site then developed its own protest culture. Farmers, students, grieving parents and ex-soldiers gathered under its trees. Campaigners used it to hold press conferences, meet politicians, discuss issues and organise longer actions. Although it was already an observatory and tourist attraction, the 1993 relocation helped transform the road into a symbolic and practical centre for public protest.

Protesters have been directed to three alternative venues after Jantar Mantar lost its designated status. Two are far from Parliament. The third, Ramlila Ground, is a large venue but is often booked months in advance. These limits affect both the timing and visibility of demonstrations.

Cost is another barrier. Jantar Mantar was free, but each alternative charges tens of thousands of rupees a day. A group seeking to protest for weeks or months would face a substantial bill. That could favour organisations with money and make sustained action difficult for ordinary citizens.

Distance also matters politically. Jantar Mantar was close to Parliament and government offices, while the alternatives may place protesters farther from decision-makers. Delhi Police says the change followed the Supreme Court’s suggestion to identify sites with adequate infrastructure. Critics argue that the new system could push protests beyond ordinary Indians’ reach and away from the seat of power.

Article 19(1)(a) of India’s Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(b) protects the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. These rights matter because protests let people criticise authorities, publicise injustice and press for change. Jantar Mantar served that role for more than three decades.

The rights are not unlimited. Article 19 allows reasonable restrictions on speech and assembly for reasons including public order, security and sovereignty. Governments may therefore designate protest locations, manage crowds and require practical safeguards. In this case, Delhi Police said it acted after the Supreme Court suggested alternative sites with adequate infrastructure.

Regulation can still raise rights concerns if it makes protest effectively impossible. The article reports that the new venues are farther away, often unavailable or costly. Courts and public authorities must balance safety and infrastructure against access, visibility and affordability. The key question is whether regulation manages protests fairly or pushes ordinary people beyond the reach of public decision-makers.