SC Seeks Centre’s Reply On Shifting Protest Site From Jantar Mantar

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 shifting of demonstrations to three alternative venues in the national capital.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said they would examine whether the authorities had applied their mind to the suitability and effectiveness of Jantar Mantar as a protest venue.

The petition challenges an October 11 standing order issued by Delhi Police commissioner Anurag Kumar, de-notifying Jantar Mantar and designating Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in east Delhi as alternative protest sites.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for petitioner Swaty Singh, sought restoration of Jantar Mantar's status as a designated protest site. He pointed out that the decision to remove the designation had been attributed to an earlier Supreme Court order.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the earlier order was not the basis for the decision. He said a committee constituted to examine the issue had submitted a report outlining the reasons.

Senior advocate Mukta Gupta argued that a protest venue must allow demonstrators to effectively communicate their grievances to the authorities.

Justice Bagchi observed that the issue also needed to be examined in the light of technological developments.

The court also directed Delhi Police to produce prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which restricted public gatherings and demonstrations on various dates over the past fortnight.

In proceedings concerning the recent protests, the court directed law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital evidence.

The petition contended that shifting demonstrations to distant locations would undermine the fundamental rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression.

It argued that the right to protest extended beyond assembling at a designated location and included the ability to communicate grievances and draw the attention of public authorities to issues requiring redressal.

The plea also challenged the standing order as arbitrary and procedurally deficient.