A writ petition has been filed challenging the Standing Order dated October 11, whereby Jantar Mantar has been de-notified as a designated protest site and three alternative venues have been notified.

The petition has been filed by advocate Swaty Singh, arguing that the relocation of protests to distant and outlying areas may render the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression ineffective.

"The right to protest is not merely a right to assemble at a designated physical space; it is a right to communicate grievances, express dissent and draw the attention of the public authorities and society at large towards matters requiring redressal. The location of a protest is, therefore, not an inconsequential administrative consideration. Its proximity to the concerned institutions, accessibility to the public and visibility to the intended audience may directly affect its effectiveness."

The petitioner has relied on Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) and argues that the impugned action is arbitrary and procedurally deficient, particularly since the revised Standard Operating Procedures governing the newly designated venues are yet to be issued, leaving the framework for exercising the right to protest uncertain and incomplete.

It has been said that peaceful protests are not invariably capable of being planned in advance as a protest may arise in response to a sudden government decision, etc so the SOP to access new venues can't be left out.

"The impugned Standing Order is further assailable on the grounds that it denotifies Jantar Mantar with immediate administrative effect while leaving the detailed and revised SOP for the three designated venues to be issued separately. Consequently, the Standing Order, on its face, alters the existing arrangement without itself setting out a complete mechanism governing access to the new venues. A notification which withdraws an existing venue can't be regarded as preserving the right to protest merely because alternative locations have been identified, particularly when the detailed arrangments governing the access to those locations are left to a subsequent SOP."

The writ has been filed by Lakshay Saini, Advocate Tushar Gupta, and Swaty Singh and it will be argued by Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta and Advocate Nandita Rao.