New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought responses from the Centre and Delhi Police on a petition challenging the removal of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and the selection of three alternative venues.
The petition challenges an October 11 standing order issued by Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, which designated Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground, and CBD Ground in east Delhi as the new official venues for protests and demonstrations.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi orally observed that it would examine whether the authorities had properly considered the use and effectiveness of Jantar Mantar as a traditional protest location.
During the hearing of the petition filed by advocate Swaty Singh, senior lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought the restoration of the notification designating Jantar Mantar as a protest site. He argued that the removal of the designation had been attributed to an earlier Supreme Court ruling.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the previous Supreme Court decision was not the actual basis for the latest order. He noted that an appointed committee had instead examined the matter and submitted a report detailing the reasons behind the decision.
Senior advocate Mukta Gupta contended that any designated protest site must be a place where demonstrators can effectively make their voices heard. Justice Bagchi observed that the matter must also be evaluated in light of modern technological developments.
Responding to arguments that Jantar Mantar should remain open for demonstrations due to its close proximity to key government establishments, Justice Bagchi indicated the court would require authorities to address those specific concerns.
The Supreme Court additionally directed Delhi Police to submit prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which replaced Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These orders had restricted public gatherings and demonstrations across various dates in Delhi over the preceding fortnight.
Law enforcement agencies were further instructed by the court to preserve all CCTV footage and relevant digital evidence linked to the demonstrations.
The underlying petition asserts that relocating protests to distant and outlying areas risks rendering the fundamental rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression ineffective. It maintains that the right to protest encompasses not only gathering at a physical location, but also communicating grievances and capturing public attention.
The legal filing emphasizes that the geographical location of a protest is not merely an administrative detail. It argues that proximity to relevant institutions, public accessibility, and visibility to an intended audience directly dictate how effectively a demonstration succeeds.
Furthermore, the petition claims the disputed standing order is arbitrary and procedurally flawed, arguing that withdrawing an existing venue cannot preserve the right to protest simply by offering alternative locations with pending standard operating procedures. The court will proceed to evaluate the matter after reviewing the replies from the Centre and Delhi Police alongside the requested records and prohibitory orders.