The concerns raised by the authorities and the Court relate to the limited space available in central Delhi and the adequacy of essential facilities, including medical assistance, washrooms and drinking water for protesters. These considerations raise an important question: can administrative convenience and public-order concerns justify relocating protests away from a historically significant site in the national capital?
The observations came during the October 9 hearing concerning petitions challenging government restrictions on access to and movement within Delhi ahead of the protests scheduled for October 10, which demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The proposed demonstrations had brought renewed attention to the restrictions imposed on public gatherings and the practical limits of exercising the constitutional right to protest.
According to reports, the Court noted that the parties, including the petitioners, favoured exploring an alternative protest venue in Delhi. However, the issue extends beyond the physical suitability of a particular location. It also concerns the accessibility and visibility of public dissent in a constitutional democracy.
In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognised that peaceful protests and demonstrations are protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, which guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms, respectively. At the same time, the Court emphasised that the exercise of these rights must be balanced against the rights of residents and other members of the public. It directed the authorities to develop an appropriate mechanism to regulate demonstrations at Jantar Mantar rather than treating the issue as one that required an absolute prohibition.
Similarly, in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), commonly known as the Shaheen Bagh case, the Supreme Court reiterated that public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely in a manner that obstructs the rights of others. The Court emphasised that fundamental rights must be exercised within the framework of the Constitution and that the rights of protesters cannot be considered in isolation from the rights of commuters and other citizens.
These judicial pronouncements establish an important constitutional principle: the right to protest is fundamental, but its exercise is subject to reasonable restrictions. The state has a legitimate responsibility to maintain public order, ensure access to essential services and protect the rights of residents. Nevertheless, such regulation must not become a means of unnecessarily suppressing peaceful dissent.
The central question, therefore, is not simply whether Jantar Mantar should remain a designated protest site, but whether any proposed relocation preserves the practical ability of citizens to make their grievances heard by the authorities. A protest venue that is spacious and secure may address logistical concerns, but its distance from the institutions against which citizens wish to demonstrate could affect the visibility and effectiveness of their protest.
Ultimately, a constitutional democracy must strike a careful balance between public order and the freedom to dissent. The right to protest cannot be absolute, but neither should reasonable restrictions render it ineffective. The challenge before the authorities is to regulate public demonstrations without undermining their constitutional purpose: enabling citizens to question those in power and seek accountability through peaceful means.