Jantar Mantar de-notified: Who decides Delhi’s protest sites?

Why in the News

Protests in Delhi can no longer be held at Jantar Mantar, near the seat of power, and must move to Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground in north Delhi or CBD Ground in east Delhi. Delhi Police de-notified Jantar Mantar, withdrawing its status as a designated protest site, on the advice of a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) committee. The move comes amid barricading and a crackdown on protesters in central Delhi.

What is a designated protest site, and who controls it in Delhi?

1. What it is: A designated protest site is a place the police set aside for demonstrations, with rules on permission and crowd size, like a booked public venue for dissent. It aims to balance protest with traffic, public safety and residents’ rights.
2. Constitutional right: Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech and Article 19(1)(b) the right to assemble peaceably. Both are subject to reasonable restrictions, including in the interests of “public order”.
3. Delhi’s exception: Under Article 239AA(3)(a), the Delhi Legislative Assembly cannot make laws on public order, police and land. So Delhi Police function under the MHA and regulate permissions and conditions at designated sites.
4. The takeaway: In Delhi, the Union government, not the elected Delhi government, decides where citizens may protest.

What has changed at Jantar Mantar?

1. Old conditions: Organisers had to apply 10 days in advance to protest at Jantar Mantar, which had a cap of 1,000 people.
2. Larger, farther ground: Ramlila Maidan, already a designated site, holds around 50,000 people.
3. Court protected space: In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), petitioners argued Ramlila Maidan was too far from the “concentration of ‘power’”. The Court agreed and kept part of Jantar Mantar Road open for regulated demonstrations.
4. Prohibitory orders: Protesters have gathered at several places, including areas where gatherings are barred under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 163 lets authorities bar gatherings in urgent cases.

How do courts separate law and order from public order?

1. Three concentric circles: In Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1966), the Supreme Court called law and order, public order and security of the State three concentric circles. Public order is the narrower circle, so an act can disturb law and order without disturbing public order.
2. Degree of restriction: In In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012), a law and order restriction “would be least intruding”, and public order “may qualify for a greater degree of restriction”. Every breach of peace is not public disorder.
3. Practical difference: A law and order issue is a local disturbance, such as two people fighting on a street. Public order concerns disturbance to the wider community, such as large scale disruption of transport.

How far can the police limit protest sites?

1. Prior permission allowed: Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1972) let police require prior permission for public meetings on streets. The State cannot prohibit assembly on every public street or place.
2. Earmarking allowed: The 2018 ruling held that in regulating demonstrations “particular areas can be earmarked”, balancing protesters’ rights with residents’.
3. A law first: Law and order is not a valid basis to limit speech, and the police cannot invoke public order on their own. They must identify the law that gives them the power.
4. Risk of closing sites: Dissent is the “lifeblood of a peaceful and law-abiding society”. Shutting protest sites on law and order grounds closes legitimate democratic channels and risks driving citizens to desperation.

Challenges

1. Permission as prohibition: Advance notice, caps and distant sites can turn regulation of protest into its denial.
2. Blanket orders: Repeated prohibitory orders over wide areas restrict peaceful assembly. Eg. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) on Section 144 orders.
3. Residents’ rights: Large protests at central sites disrupt traffic and daily life. Eg. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), the Shaheen Bagh ruling.

Way Forward

1. Published criteria: Set out in law or notified rules how protest sites are designated and de-notified.
2. Reasoned refusals: Require written reasons for refusing permission, with a quick appeal, and limit Section 163 orders to specific areas and periods.
3. A central site retained: Keep a regulated space near the seat of power, as the 2018 ruling allowed.

Conclusion

Where Delhi may protest is now set by the Union government through its police, and the regulated space the Supreme Court preserved at the centre is gone. Whether courts treat the closure as regulation of assembly or as its prohibition is what to watch.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026] X’ was addressing a seminar on the meaning of the term ‘law’ as provided under Article 13, Part III of the Constitution of India. ‘X’ explained that the meaning of the term ‘law’ in the Constitution of India was very comprehensive. It included ordinances, orders and even rules and regulations. ‘Y’ pointed out that the term ‘law’ in Article 13 also included custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law, to which ‘X’ was not convinced. Based on the above, select the correct conclusion from the options given below: (a) X is correct in the interpretation of law, including the view on non-inclusion of custom (b) The view of Y that ‘law’ included custom is not correct (c) The views of both X and Y are correct (d) The view of only Y is correct ANSWER: D”