Govt. move de-notification Jantar Mantar follows SC suggestion that protest sites need more space, open air

Security personnel stand vigil near the fortified Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on October 11, 2026. | Photo credit: SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA

Exactly three days before the Delhi Police on Monday (Oct 12, 2026) denotified central Delhi’s Jantar Mantar as the designated site for protests, the Supreme Court and the Union government were on the same page to find an alternative venue to “peacefully and lawfully” express dissent in the national capital.

On 9 October, both the court and the government decided that central Delhi was too cramped for protests. She denied the demonstrators basic equipment. There were also observations and remarks about how inconvenient the protests in and around Jantar Mantar were for the common commuters of Delhi. The Chief Justice of India noted that central Delhi had no washrooms, medical and drinking water facilities.

In fact, the four-page order passed on October 9 records the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant urging the Union government to seek “spacious, open” alternative sites.

The order was passed during an October 9 hearing on petitions challenging the government’s move to restrict access to and from the capital, aimed at stopping the October 10 youth protests demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. At the time of the hearing, the protest was expected to take place at Jantar Mantar, a place designated for expressing dissent in the state capital.

The order said that all parties, including the petitioners, were in favor of finding an alternative venue for the protests in Delhi.

The need for basic equipment

“During the hearing, it was suggested, and the lawyers for the parties were ad idem (of the same opinion), that it is high time to provide basic facilities to those engaged in peaceful and lawful protest. For this purpose, suitable alternative locations capable of accommodating such infrastructure should be identified and marked. Let the competent authority consider the proposal and take an appropriate decision on it,” the October 9 order said.

Earlier, in August, the court had made a similar suggestion to Advocate General Tushar Mehta, who was appearing before the Union government authorities. At the time, the court was hearing a petition filed by Satish Chand Kaushik, represented by advocate Aakarshan Aditya.

The petition demanded the abolition of Jantar Mantar as the usual designated venue for public protests and demonstrations and designation of Ramlila Maidan or another sufficiently large and safe venue as the main protest venue of the national capital.

Ramlila Maidan, North Delhi’s Burari and East Delhi’s CBD have been designated as new locations for protests as per the Standing Order on Guidelines for Holding Protests or Demonstrations in Delhi issued by Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar.

‘Golden rule’

In 2018, the Supreme Court declared the “golden rule” that the right to protest must be balanced with the right of residents to live peacefully. The observation came in a decision to lift the ban on protests at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club.

“Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but demonstrations expressing dissent must only be in designated places,” the court observed.

In its 2020 judgment in the Shaheen Bagh case, the court held that fundamental rights do not live in isolation. “The protester’s right must be balanced with the commuter’s right. They must coexist in mutual respect,” the court said in the ruling.

Published – 12 Oct 2026 16:47 IST