JANTAR MANTAR’S PROTEST STATUS SPARKS FRESH LEGAL BATTLE AS DELHI POLICE INVOKES SUPREME COURT DIRECTIONS

October 13, 2026

Delhi Police on Tuesday defended its decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues, telling the Delhi High Court that the move had been taken in accordance with directions issued by the Supreme Court. The submission came during a hearing on a petition filed by the Indian Youth Congress (IYC), which is seeking permission to hold a peaceful demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

Additional Solicitor-General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the police, made the submission before Justice Amit Mahajan. He argued that the petition had become infructuous because the authorities had withdrawn Jantar Mantar’s designation and identified three alternative locations for demonstrations: Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi.

“The entire petition is about peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar. All other prayers flow from it. Today, we have denotified Jantar Mantar pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court,” Sharma told the bench.

The police also informed the court that a separate petition challenging the removal of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue had been filed before the Supreme Court. The development indicates that the dispute over the historic demonstration site is now being examined through multiple legal proceedings.

Despite the police’s argument that the IYC petition had become infructuous, the High Court issued notice to the authorities on the organisation’s request for reconsideration of its application. The court also sought a response on the petition’s broader challenge to what it described as the automatic, mechanical, unguided or disproportionate prohibition of peaceful assembly without an individual assessment of each proposed demonstration.

Another issue placed before the court was the requirement that organisers apply for permission at least 10 days before the proposed date of a protest. The IYC has questioned whether such a requirement, when applied rigidly, can unnecessarily restrict the exercise of fundamental rights.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the youth Congress, said the petition would be amended in view of the authorities’ decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of designated venues. He urged the court to examine the remaining challenges rather than dismiss the entire matter solely because the original venue was no longer available.

The court scheduled the next hearing for November, leaving the legal questions surrounding the new protest framework unresolved.

The Supreme Court’s earlier intervention came on October 9, when it asked the government to consider designating an alternative location for peaceful demonstrations in the national capital. The apex court emphasised that a suitable protest venue should provide basic amenities for demonstrators while allowing authorities to manage public order, traffic and security.

That intervention followed a plea challenging proposed restrictions on Metro stations and the cancellation of trains arriving in Delhi ahead of a demonstration called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) against Kumar. The security measures and disruptions surrounding the planned protest had prompted wider questions about how far the authorities could go in restricting public gatherings.

The IYC’s petition originated from Delhi Police’s October 1 refusal to grant permission for a proposed demonstration at Jantar Mantar. The organisation had applied on September 25 to hold a peaceful protest involving approximately 100 to 150 participants between October 1 and October 25. It stated that it was willing to comply with lawful conditions relating to security, traffic management, discipline and public order.

The Congress’s youth wing has sought Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the SIR exercise, arguing that its proposed demonstration was an exercise of the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully without arms. Those allegations remain contested, and the proceedings concern the legality of the restrictions imposed on the proposed protest rather than a judicial finding on the underlying electoral claims.

The dispute has brought the regulation of public demonstrations in Delhi into sharper focus. While the police maintain that alternative sites will allow protests to take place under a revised framework, the IYC has questioned whether the relocation of demonstrations and rigid advance-permission requirements could make it more difficult for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights.

The outcome of the case will depend on the police’s response to the High Court’s notices and the court’s examination of the revised protest arrangements. For now, Jantar Mantar’s removal from the designated list has not ended the legal dispute; it has shifted the focus towards the availability of alternative venues, the proportionality of restrictions and the safeguards required to ensure that peaceful assembly remains a meaningful constitutional right.