Out of Site: Jantar Mantar and the Right to Protest

The Lift Line

“That is not how a democracy works.” (The Hindu, editorial)

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

This is an unsigned editorial in The Hindu of 16 October 2026, so it is the paper’s own view. Its headline, “Out of site”, plays on “out of sight”: the paper argues that moving protests away from Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, until this month the designated protest venue, pushes protesters out of sight of the seat of power.

For the exam, set the politics aside. The constitutional question is old and examinable: may the State decide where citizens protest? The right to protest rests on Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (the right to assemble peaceably and without arms). Both can be limited by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and Article 19(3). The Supreme Court has drawn the line twice for Delhi: in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (2018), on Jantar Mantar itself, and in Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (2020). This piece takes the angle the earlier coverage did not: not whether people may protest, but where.

This site has set out the right-to-protest case law in an earlier explainer and reported the denotification in a roundup item.

GS Paper 2: fundamental rights (Article 19 and its reasonable restrictions); the role of the judiciary; police and public order in the national capital.

Background and Context

The background: five days in October

The background to the editorial runs over five days. On 9 October 2026, a Supreme Court Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard a petition against the suspension of trains to Delhi and of Metro services in the national capital ahead of protests announced for the next day, LiveLaw reports. The Bench was told that the police had refused permission to hold those protests at Jantar Mantar, “the designated protest venue”.

The Bench’s main order was on transport: it asked the Centre not to stop train and Metro services completely and to allow them in a regulated manner. On the protest site, the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, told the Court that the competent authority would consider designating a place other than Jantar Mantar for peaceful protests. As LiveLaw reports the order, counsel for the parties agreed that “some suitable place where all basic amenities can be provided for peaceful and lawful protestors needs to be identified and designated”, and the Court said: “Let the competent authority consider the suggestion and take an appropriate decision”. The Chief Justice also observed orally: “There are government residences there. Some MPs stay in the front lane there. Lots of problems even to protesters. They are denied toilets there”. The Solicitor General added that an ambulance would have difficulty reaching a protester who fell ill at the site.

In that context came the protests of 10 October, which demanded the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

For context on what followed: a Delhi Police standing order of 11 October, announced on 12 October, denotified Jantar Mantar as a protest site and named three grounds in its place: Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground.

The latest stage, for context, came on 13 October in the Delhi High Court. Before Justice Amit Mahajan, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the police, said the denotification followed the Supreme Court’s order: “Today, we have denotified Jantar Mantar pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court.” He also said: “The Court said appropriate sites need to be identified and designated and we have precisely done that”. He argued that the petition before the court, which challenged the refusal of permission to protest at Jantar Mantar, had become infructuous. The court instead issued notice on three of its prayers:

• reconsideration of the petitioner’s request to protest;
• a declaration that the police cannot rely on their 2022 standing order to prohibit peaceful assemblies mechanically or disproportionately, without an individualised assessment and consideration of less restrictive measures;
• a challenge to the requirement to apply at least 10 days before a protest, which the petitioner argued cannot be an absolute bar to applications filed at shorter notice.

The High Court decided nothing; the matter is reported to be heard next in November. The Additional Solicitor General also told the court that a plea challenging the denotification has been filed in the Supreme Court. LiveLaw reports that the Supreme Court had earlier issued notice on a separate petition against allowing protests at Jantar Mantar.

The 2018 Jantar Mantar case

Jantar Mantar has been to the Supreme Court before, and that background shapes today’s debate. Residents of Jantar Mantar Road went to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and in its judgment of 5 October 2017 the NGT directed the authorities to “immediately stop all the activities of dharna, protest, agitations, assembling of people, public speeches, using of loud speakers, etc. at Jantar Mantar Road”.

In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324, decided on 23 July 2018 by Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, the Supreme Court heard appeals against that NGT judgment together with a writ petition against repeated prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) covering Parliament House, North and South Block and the Central Vista lawns. The judgment did four things:

1. It located the right. “Together, both these rights ensure that the people of this country have right to assemble peacefully and protest”, the Court said of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), adding: “Legitimate dissent is a distinguishable feature of any democracy.”
2. It set the limits. The same rights are “not untrammeled and unlimited in their scope”, and Article 19(2) to (6) provide for reasonable restrictions.
3. It agreed with the NGT on the facts, not on the remedy. The Court accepted that “holding of demonstrations in the way it has been happening is causing serious discomfort and harassment to the residents”, but found that this happened because “authorities did not take necessary measures to regulate the same”.
4. It ordered regulation, not closure. The Commissioner of Police was directed to “devise a proper mechanism for limited use of the area for such purposes”, with prior permission and guidelines within two months. For the Boat Club area, the Court said the guidelines could prescribe a “minimum distance from the Parliament House, North and South Blocks, Supreme Court, residences of dignitaries”, keeping in mind that “Ramlila Maidan is available and Jantar Mantar Road in a regulated manner shall be available as well”.

Amit Sahni (2020)

The second background case is Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (Civil Appeal No. 3282 of 2020), decided on 7 October 2020. The Court held that “public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely”, and added: “Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.” It also said: “We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.”

The Analysis

The paper’s argument runs in four steps.

1. The move is arbitrary. The decision has “triggered a storm of protest over its sheer arbitrariness”, the editorial says. It notes that the Delhi Police are under the Union Home Ministry, and that they told the High Court the denotification followed a Supreme Court directive.

2. The inconvenience argument proves too much. Protesters may cause traffic congestion and inconvenience, the paper concedes, but such arguments are valid only as far as similar arguments raised against democracy itself, such as the view that elections disrupt development. The argument against protests at Jantar Mantar, it says, “is antithetical to the concept of public deliberation and protest, which are central to democracy.”

3. Protest needs to be seen. “A centrally located site of protest is part of the urban space in most democracies, as in Washington DC and London.” Protesters are usually marginal groups without a seat at the decision-making table: “Street protest is actually an outcome of their lack of power, and an instrument for people with no other way of being heard.” The paper points to the site’s nearness to the Parliament complex and the President’s Estate, and puts its charge bluntly: “To keep them far away from the seat of power and render them invisible is a violent police argument against their very attempt to be heard and seen.”

4. The logic has no stopping point. “If protests can happen only far away from the seat of power, the logic can easily be extended to argue that people must stay at home and protest.”

A precision point: what the Supreme Court asked for

The editorial says the Bench “had urged the Union government to identify an alternative protest site that is spacious and open”. As LiveLaw reports the order, the Court asked the competent authority to consider identifying a suitable place with basic amenities, and its main order was about trains and Metro services. “Spacious and open” is the paper’s description; LiveLaw’s quotation of the order speaks of “basic amenities”. The police say the denotification follows the Supreme Court’s order, but the decision to denotify, and the choice of the three grounds, were theirs. A Mains answer should not write that the Supreme Court ordered Jantar Mantar closed.

Where the 2018 judgment cuts both ways

Read the Jantar Mantar judgment carefully and it supports both sides.

• For the paper: faced with an NGT order that stopped all protest on Jantar Mantar Road, the Court chose regulation over closure. It found that the hardship came from the authorities’ failure to regulate, and kept the road open for limited, regulated use.
• For the police: the same Court said that “nobody can claim that I have a right to hold demonstration at one particular area only”, and that particular areas can be earmarked while regulating demonstrations. It noted that a portion of Ramlila Maidan was already earmarked for demonstrations.
• On proximity itself: the petitioners argued in 2018, as the paper argues now, that Ramlila Maidan is far from where power is concentrated and that protest there would have little effect. The Court’s reply: “This may be correct.” But “we are living in an era of technology where a concerned voice by a group of persons can reach the right quarters by numerous means”.

The difference today is one of degree. The 2018 judgment assumed that both Ramlila Maidan and a regulated Jantar Mantar Road would be available. The new standing order keeps Ramlila Maidan, adds two grounds, and removes Jantar Mantar. Whether that is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(3) is the question the pending cases may test. The open question is where, not whether: can protest at a distant site still be seen and heard?

The process questions before the High Court

The prayers on which the High Court issued notice are about how permission is decided, not where. An individualised assessment, consideration of less restrictive measures, and a notice period that is not an absolute bar are the familiar tests of whether a restriction is reasonable. Even a well-chosen site can be undone by a blanket refusal; and even a distant site may be defensible if permission is decided fairly.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

The rights:

• Article 19(1)(a): freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(b): the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
• Article 19(2), on speech: sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.
• Article 19(2) also covers contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.
• Article 19(3), on assembly: only two grounds, the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order.

The cases:

• Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (July 2018), (2018) 17 SCC 324: protest is a fundamental right; Jantar Mantar Road kept for limited, regulated use.
• The NGT judgment it reviewed (October 2017), on residents’ complaints, had told the authorities to stop all protest activity on Jantar Mantar Road.
• Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (October 2020): no indefinite occupation of public ways; dissent “in designated places alone”.

October 2026:

• Delhi Police standing order: Jantar Mantar denotified; Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground named as protest sites.
• Delhi High Court (Justice Amit Mahajan): notice on three prayers, including one against the 10-day advance-notice rule; nothing decided.

⚠️ Watch the trap: The Supreme Court did not order the denotification: as reported, it asked the competent authority to consider a suitable site with basic amenities, and its main order was on trains and Metro. Article 19(3) allows restrictions on assembly on two grounds only; “security of the State” belongs to Article 19(2). The 2018 judgment did not shut Jantar Mantar; it allowed limited, regulated use.

The Debate

The paper’s case. Protest is how people without power make themselves heard, and it works only if those in power can see it. A protest site near Parliament is part of the democratic city, not a nuisance to be managed away. Inconvenience is the price of democracy, and an argument that pushes protest to the margins of the city can be stretched until protest disappears.

The case for the move. Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on assembly in the interests of public order. The Supreme Court found in 2018 that unregulated protest on Jantar Mantar Road caused serious hardship to residents, and it said nobody can claim a right to protest at one particular area. Amit Sahni requires dissent to be expressed in designated places. The Chief Justice’s oral remarks pointed to the lack of toilets at Jantar Mantar, and the Solicitor General to the difficulty of getting an ambulance there; larger grounds may serve protesters better.

The balanced verdict. The State may choose where protest happens, but a choice of site is itself a restriction and must be reasonable. The test is not whether the new grounds are lawful places but whether protest there can still reach its audience, and whether permission is decided case by case rather than refused by rule. The 2018 judgment’s model, regulation of a central site rather than its closure, is the benchmark the pending cases will measure the new order against.

How to Think About This

Use a four-question siting test on any restriction on where people may protest:

1. Ground: which Article 19(3) ground does it rest on: the sovereignty and integrity of India, or public order?
2. Means: does it regulate (numbers, timing, noise, distance from sensitive buildings), or does it remove the site altogether?
3. Reach: can the message still reach the people it is meant for? The paper says distance makes protest invisible; the 2018 judgment said technology carries the message.
4. Process: is each application assessed on its own facts, are less restrictive measures considered, and is the notice period a requirement or an absolute bar?

The 2018 judgment answers the second question with “regulate”. The paper presses the third. The High Court prayers raise the fourth. In a Mains answer, run all four, then weigh them under the reasonableness standard of Article 19(3).

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• Core idea: The Hindu argues that moving protests away from Jantar Mantar makes protest invisible; constitutionally, the question is whether a choice of site is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(3).
• Know the anchors: Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(2) and 19(3); Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (23 July 2018); Amit Sahni (7 October 2020).
• Know the sequence: Supreme Court order of 9 October 2026 (consider a suitable site; main order on trains and Metro); standing order of 11 October, announced 12 October; Delhi High Court notice on 13 October.
• Status: the High Court has only issued notice; a plea against the denotification has reportedly been filed in the Supreme Court; nothing has been decided.
• Mains use: GS2 fundamental rights, reasonable restrictions, public order and the right to dissent.

Revision Flowchart

Sources: The Hindu, editorial, “Out of site: On Jantar Mantar denotification, protests and democracy”, 16 October 2026; LiveLaw, Supreme Court asks Centre to decide on reconsidering Jantar Mantar as designated protest venue; Bar and Bench, decision to de-notify Jantar Mantar taken after Supreme Court order, Delhi Police to High Court; Deccan Chronicle, Delhi Police tells High Court Jantar Mantar dropped as protest site; Supreme Court of India, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 324; Supreme Court of India, Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police, Civil Appeal No. 3282 of 2020.

Source: Out of Site: Jantar Mantar and the Right to Protest — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis