On October 12, 2026, that era officially ended. Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar issued a standing order denotifying Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site, naming three alternatives: Ramlila Ground in Central Delhi, Burari Ground in North Delhi, and CBD Ground in East Delhi.
The decision, described by authorities as stemming from a Ministry of Home Affairs committee recommendation, has reignited a fundamental debate: when an established protest venue disappears, where can ordinary citizens go to demand justice, accountability, and transparency?
Human rights activist Shabnam Hashmi explained the venue’s unique value: “Jantar Mantar is in the centre of the town, it is connected, it is next to parliament... it was a very important space for all protests”. During demonstrations, Members of Parliament could step out to engage with protesters, receive memoranda, and witness public sentiment firsthand.
The alternative venues are significantly less accessible. Ramlila Ground is approximately 4 kilometres from the old site, CBD Ground is 12-13 kilometres away, and Burari Ground sits nearly 21 kilometres from central Delhi. For protesters travelling from other states, this translates into higher transport costs, longer journeys, and reduced visibility.
As one protester told AFP: “Jantar Mantar is close to Parliament and the offices of those who have the capacity to address demands. There was a possibility of getting a response, of pushing for resolution. From so far away, how do you exert that pressure, make yourself heard?
Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court that the decision was taken “pursuant to orders of the Supreme Court”. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta later clarified before the Supreme Court that “the Court’s judgment is not the basis of the decision. The committee was constituted much before”.
The Indian Youth Congress had approached the High Court after Delhi Police denied permission to protest at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The petition raised questions about how fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) can be regulated by police authorities.
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta argued that “the fundamental right of a citizen to carry out a protest cannot be scuttled,” citing the Supreme Court’s Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan ruling that protest venues must be located where demonstrators can be heard.
The Supreme Court, hearing a batch of petitions related to the protests, issued notices to the Union government and Delhi Police and directed law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital material.
These suspensions were concentrated around two major protest periods: the July NEET examination protests and the October demonstrations demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.
Ahead of the October 10 protest, Delhi Police ordered a 24-hour suspension of mobile internet services within a 4-kilometre radius of the Janpath-Kartavya Path crossing, effective from 10 PM on October 9 to 10 PM on October 10. The order was issued under the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, and the Telecommunications Act, 2023.
The shutdown had immediate practical consequences: Google Maps became inaccessible, leaving commuters and residents disoriented and unable to navigate diverted routes.
Critically, the October suspension order was marked “Top Secret” and communicated through a letter to telecom operators rather than being publicly published—a departure from past practice and a potential violation of the Supreme Court’s 2020 Anuradha Bhasin ruling, which mandated publication of such orders.
Home Secretary Mohan subsequently tendered an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court while simultaneously defending the shutdown as “necessary” to prevent disturbance of public order. In a four-page affidavit filed late Wednesday, he argued that the 24-hour suspension was “proportionate” and “limited in duration and geographical scope”.
The Centre also sought modification of the Supreme Court’s order to permit internet suspensions when necessary, subject to legal requirements and safeguards.
DMRC Chairperson D. Thara also filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology, clarifying that while Delhi Police had initially requested closure of 57 metro stations, the number was reduced to 45 following the Supreme Court’s October 9 direction.
Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), the youth-led movement that had mobilised thousands for protests over electoral roll revisions, responded defiantly. After the denotification, CJP leaders climbed barricades to “reclaim Jantar Mantar” with the Indian national flag, before being detained and sent to jail for five days on trespassing charges.
CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke warned: “Today, Modi denotified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. Tomorrow, he will denotify democracy itself. The dictator’s problem was never the protest site. It was the very idea of people protesting”.
Saurav Das, CJP co-convenor, called the move “an assault on people’s fundamental right to protest and peaceful assembly”.
Hashmi offered a broader perspective: “They can designate and denotify locations, but given the mood in this country, people will now reclaim public spaces. Every place in Delhi can become Jantar Mantar”.
When protest venues are relocated far from centres of power, when permissions are denied on procedural grounds, when digital connectivity is suspended without published orders, and when security deployments disrupt normal life for thousands—the cumulative effect is a chilling of democratic participation.
The Supreme Court’s ongoing consideration of these issues, the High Court’s examination of the denotification, and the contempt proceedings against senior officials will shape the legal boundaries of protest rights for years to come. For now, the message from the streets is clear: the resistance to shrinking democratic spaces is not easily denotified.
No comments:
Post a Comment