Jantar Mantar should never have been designated as protest site, Delhi Police tells SC

The Delhi Police defended its October 11 decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as an approved protest venue. The dispute matters because the petitioner argued that removing the site violated rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. The police said people could protest, but not demand access to one particular location.

Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar said Jantar Mantar is a public road and can accommodate only 1,500 people. He cited a July protest by the Cockroach Janta Party that exceeded this limit. The affidavit also pointed to nearby embassies, Union government offices, residents, and concerns about public safety and order.

The police said three alternative venues were available: Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground, and CBD Ground. It also rejected claims that the decision followed the Supreme Court’s October 9 notice. The court’s consideration of the challenge will determine how the competing interests are addressed.

A designated protest site is a location officially approved for demonstrations. Such sites help authorities manage crowds, traffic, safety, and public order while preserving space for people to express demands. Jantar Mantar had been used for protests in Delhi, including demonstrations against alleged exam irregularities and political campaigns.

Its central position was important to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that a protest’s visibility and proximity to government institutions are central to its effectiveness. That location can help protesters reach the intended audience directly. The police, however, said digital technology and social media have made closeness to the government less necessary.

The disagreement is therefore about more than a venue. It concerns whether a protest remains meaningful when moved away from its intended audience. The police said demonstrators have rights, but cannot insist on exercising them at a particular site. Three replacement grounds were offered under the order.

The police said Jantar Mantar can accommodate 1,500 people. That capacity became central to its case because a July protest by the Cockroach Janta Party allegedly drew a crowd far larger than the venue could safely hold. The figure supports the police argument that the site is unsuitable for large demonstrations.

The surrounding area is also densely used. Within a three-to-four-kilometre radius, police counted 99 Union government offices and 78 embassies and diplomatic missions. Together, those offices reportedly receive more than 1.4 lakh visitors each day. Nearby residential areas contain around 64,500 residents.

These figures explain why police connected the site to public safety and public order. A crowd exceeding the venue’s capacity could affect workers, visitors, diplomats, and residents. The police used this combination of limited space and heavy surrounding activity to justify denotifying Jantar Mantar and shifting protests to three other grounds.

The Delhi Police said Jantar Mantar should no longer host protests because it cannot safely handle large crowds. The site can accommodate only 1,500 people, while a July Cockroach Janta Party protest reportedly exceeded that number. Police described the location as a public road rather than a suitable demonstration ground.

The affidavit identified additional pressures. Within three to four kilometres are 78 embassies and diplomatic missions and 99 Union government offices. Their combined daily footfall exceeds 1.4 lakh, while nearby residential areas have about 64,500 residents. Police said these conditions raised increasing concerns about public order and public safety.

Police also argued that proximity to government institutions is now less important because digital technology and social media provide other ways to reach audiences. It said the decision had been under consideration for a considerable period. The order therefore combined capacity, safety, surrounding activity, and changing communication methods.

Under the police order, demonstrators can use three alternative venues instead of Jantar Mantar. They are Ramlila Ground in central Delhi, Burari Ground in northern Delhi, and CBD Ground in eastern Delhi’s Shahdara area. The alternatives were presented as locations for protests after Jantar Mantar was removed from the approved list.

The police’s choice followed recommendations from a committee constituted by the Union home ministry. The order was linked to concerns about Jantar Mantar’s limited capacity, its location on a public road, and surrounding public-order and safety pressures. Police said the site could hold only 1,500 people.

The replacement venues also shape the legal dispute. The petitioner argued that distance from government institutions could reduce a protest’s effectiveness. Police responded that people have no fundamental right to insist on a particular protest site. The Supreme Court is considering the challenge to the denotification decision.

If people cannot protest where government institutions are visible and nearby, their message could become less direct and less noticeable to the intended audience. The petitioner argued that proximity and visibility are central to an effective protest. In that view, a distant venue may preserve the act of assembling but weaken its practical impact.

Jantar Mantar’s location made this concern especially sharp. The police said 99 Union government offices and 78 diplomatic missions lie within three to four kilometres. It also said digital technology and social media have made proximity to the government redundant. The two sides therefore disagree about whether physical visibility remains necessary.

The consequence would not automatically be the end of free speech or peaceful assembly. People would still have alternative grounds under the order. However, the location could affect attention, access, and pressure on decision-makers. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the challenge will address the balance between these rights and site restrictions.

Freedom of speech and expression protects people’s ability to communicate opinions and demands. The right to assemble peacefully protects collective gatherings, including protests. In this dispute, the petitioner said removing Jantar Mantar from the approved list violated both rights. The case matters because a protest’s location can affect how effectively its message reaches authorities.

These rights are not generally absolute. Under India’s constitutional framework, governments may impose reasonable, lawful restrictions for interests such as public order, public safety, and the rights of others. The restriction must address a genuine concern and cannot simply erase the right. The police relied on Jantar Mantar’s 1,500-person capacity, nearby offices and missions, and surrounding residents.

The police also said protesters cannot claim a fundamental right to one particular site. The petitioner took the opposite view on visibility and proximity. The Supreme Court’s review must weigh meaningful protest access against crowd management and safety. The article does not state the court’s final decision.