A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices on Thursday while considering petitions arising from protests over the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The judges said they would examine whether the authorities had properly considered the suitability and effectiveness of the central Delhi location for public demonstrations.
The challenge concerns a standing order issued by Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar on October 11, replacing Jantar Mantar with three designated protest locations: Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in east Delhi. The decision has prompted legal objections over access to government institutions and the practical exercise of the right to peaceful assembly.
The bench sought clarification on the relationship between the police decision and observations made by the Supreme Court on October 9 about identifying alternative locations for demonstrations. Those observations had called for consideration of suitable spaces with facilities for protesters, rather than expressly directing that Jantar Mantar be removed from the approved list.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the denotification was not based on its earlier observations. He said a committee constituted by the Union Home Ministry had examined the issue and submitted a detailed report before the court raised the question of alternative protest venues.
That explanation differed from the position presented by Delhi Police before the Delhi High Court on Tuesday. During proceedings concerning permission for a demonstration, the police had linked their decision to the Supreme Court’s October 9 order. The apparent discrepancy became a central issue in Thursday’s hearing.
The Supreme Court did not restore Jantar Mantar’s designated status or rule on the legality of the police order. Its notice requires the authorities to respond to the challenge, leaving the substantive questions concerning the decision and its constitutional implications open for examination.
The petition, filed by advocate Swaty Singh, argues that removing Jantar Mantar as a protest venue infringes constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression and peaceful assembly. It invokes Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), while acknowledging that these freedoms may be subject to lawful restrictions in the interests of public order.
The petitioner maintains that the location of a demonstration is integral to its effectiveness. Moving assemblies away from government offices, the plea argues, could diminish protesters’ ability to communicate grievances to the institutions whose decisions they seek to challenge.
Senior advocate Mukta Gupta submitted that protest venues should be sufficiently close to government establishments for demonstrators to make themselves heard. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also sought restoration of Jantar Mantar’s status, drawing attention to the authorities’ earlier reliance on the Supreme Court’s observations.
The dispute has developed alongside demonstrations opposing the Election Commission’s SIR exercise. Opposition parties and protest organisers have questioned the revision process, alleging that eligible voters risk exclusion from electoral rolls. Those allegations form part of a wider set of legal and political challenges and have not been resolved by the court’s notice concerning Jantar Mantar.
Separate proceedings before the Delhi High Court concern a request by Indian Youth Congress president Uday Bhanu Chib for permission to demonstrate at Jantar Mantar. Delhi Police argued that the request had lost its basis following the site’s denotification, but the High Court sought responses on other objections to the restrictions governing demonstrations.
Those objections include the manner in which permission requests are assessed and the requirement to apply at least ten days before a proposed protest. The High Court has listed the matter for further consideration in November.
The Supreme Court’s consideration also takes place against the backdrop of its earlier rulings on public assembly, including a 2018 judgment examining restrictions on protests at Jantar Mantar. That decision addressed the need to balance citizens’ rights to demonstrate with the interests of residents, public order and access to shared spaces.
The new police order identifies Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground as the authorised alternatives, but the petition contests whether their availability adequately addresses the loss of a venue situated close to central government offices. The designated locations differ in their accessibility and proximity to the institutions targeted by demonstrations.
