Supreme Court Says It Will Examine Whether Delhi Police Applied Its Mind While Denotifying 'Jantar Mantar' As Protest Site; Issues Notice

Debby Jain & Amisha Shrivastava

15 Oct 2026 1:30 PM IST

Share this

Listen to this Article

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a writ petition 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 by the Delhi Police.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymaya Bagchi orally observed that the Court will examine whether there had been an application of mind by the authority concerning the use and efficacy of the site.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought restoration of the site's notification. He highlighted that the denotification has been stated to be in terms of a Supreme Court order.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded that the Supreme Court's earlier decision was not the basis for the denotification. He said that a committee had been constituted, had submitted a report, and reasons had been recorded for the decision.

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta argued that a protest site must be one where demonstrators can be heard.

Justice Bagchi observed that the issue also had to be understood from the perspective of technology. He referred to the argument that Jantar Mantar should not be shifted because of its proximity to government establishments and said that the Court would call upon the State to respond.

Background

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."

Case Title : SWATY SINGH VS UNION OF INDIACase Number : W.P.(C) No.-001357/2026

Debby Jain & Amisha Shrivastava