The issue of removing Delhi's Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest sites is no longer limited to just an administrative decision, but has sparked an important debate on the rights of citizens, the responsibility of the government and the constitutional role of the judiciary in a democracy. After Delhi Police's order of 11 October 2026 was challenged in the Supreme Court, the biggest question is that it is the right of the administration to determine the protest site, so can the Supreme Court give orders to the government in this matter or will it fulfill its role only by giving advice? The answer lies in the system of the Constitution and the powers of judicial review.
In a democratic system, the government and administration have the right to take necessary decisions to maintain law and order. In a metropolis like the capital Delhi, it is the administrative responsibility to determine the protest sites keeping in mind the traffic, security, public facilities and functioning of government institutions. But administrative rights do not mean that the officials have unlimited right to limit the fundamental rights of the citizens. Every decision of the government should pass the test of the Constitution. If an order affects the rights of citizens, the Court can review its legality and appropriateness.
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution provides citizens with freedom of expression, while Article 19(1)(b) grants the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. Due to these rights, citizens can raise their problems to the government, protest against policies and express their disagreement on matters of public importance. However, these rights are not absolute. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the grounds prescribed under Articles 19(2) and 19(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, the real question is not about the right to ban the performance, but about the necessity, propriety and proportion of the ban.
Jantar Mantar has long been a major venue for organizations, social workers, employees and political parties coming from different parts of the country to express their views. Due to its proximity to Parliament and central government institutions, the message of the protests taking place here reaches public representatives, officials and common citizens relatively easily. If this venue is completely removed from the performance list and other venues like Ramlila Maidan, Burari Maidan and CBD Maidan are earmarked, then the administration will have to explain why this change was needed and what are the practical reasons behind it.
The distance of the protest site does not in itself make an order unconstitutional. The administration has to take care of crowd control, security, traffic and civic amenities. There may be a lack of facilities like toilets, drinking water, medical aid and adequate space at Jantar Mantar. In such a situation, the suggestion of organizing a demonstration at a large and convenient venue may also be in favor of public interest. But if alternative places are difficult to reach, public transport facilities are not adequate or the possibility of conveying one's views to the concerned authorities is very less, then an impartial assessment of the impact of this decision becomes necessary.
This is where the role of the Supreme Court becomes important. Taking administrative decisions and judicial review of the same are two different subjects. The Court itself, under normal circumstances, does not decide on which road in the city the demonstration should take place or which ground should be earmarked. This is the work of the concerned administrative officers. But if their decision is said to be arbitrary, discriminatory or contrary to fundamental rights, the Court can examine whether the decision was taken in accordance with law or not. He can also see whether the administration had given due consideration to the balance between the rights of citizens and public order.
According to the news available in this matter, the Supreme Court has sought answers from the Central Government and Delhi Police on October 15. This step is important, but it would not be appropriate to consider it as a final decision against the government or a decision in favor of the petitioners. Issuance of notice means that the court wants to examine the legal aspects of the dispute by hearing the parties concerned. The government will get an opportunity to explain under what circumstances the decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of designated sites was taken and on what basis arrangements for alternative sites were made.
If the government makes it clear that the decision has been taken keeping in mind security, crowd management, traffic and facilities for the protesters and adequate arrangements are available for effective demonstrations at the new sites, then the court may refrain from interfering in the administrative decision. On the contrary, if the order is not based on solid grounds, appears to ignore important aspects in the decision-making process or has undue impact on the fundamental rights of citizens, the Court may direct the government to reconsider. According to the circumstances and legal grounds, he may also consider relief such as quashing or modifying the order.
It is important to understand an important distinction here. The court can give suggestions to the government, seek answers from it and can also issue legal instructions. Advice and orders are not the same. If the Court merely suggests consideration of an alternative arrangement, its nature will be different. But if the final judicial order directs the government or the police to take a decision within the stipulated time, adopt proper procedure or make arrangements in accordance with the fundamental rights, then the concerned authorities will have to follow it. This will not be called putting political pressure on the government, but exercising judicial power under the Constitution.
A broader aspect of this issue is that protests are not just the activity of political parties. Employees, farmers, social organizations and common citizens struggling with their problems also take help of them to present their demands. If the rules governing permission for demonstrations are unclear, details of the facilities at alternative sites are not available, or there is a lack of transparency in the permitting process, it could create unnecessary hardships for citizens. Therefore, the government should make clear standard operating rules which mention arrangements like site selection, permission, security, medical aid, drinking water, toilets and public transport. At the same time, there should be practical arrangements for peaceful protests on issues of public interest that arise suddenly.
Ultimately, in the Jantar Mantar dispute, neither the rights of the administration can be completely denied nor the fundamental rights can be weakened merely in the name of maintaining order. The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to bring a government under political pressure, but to ensure that administrative decisions remain within the limits of the Constitution. The strength of democracy lies in the fact that the government maintains the system, citizens get the opportunity to raise their voice and in case of dispute, the judiciary conducts impartial review. Therefore, the final test in this matter will not be whether the protest should take place at Jantar Mantar itself or at some other ground, but whether the new system actually protects the right of citizens to peaceful protest or limits it only on paper.
Kantilal Mandot