SC seeks Centre's response on plea to shift protest venue from Jantar Mantar
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an alternative venue to Jantar Mantar for protests, asking Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to obtain instructions from the Centre on the issues raised in the petition.
A bench comprising the Chief Justice and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to the Centre and other parties on the plea filed by Satish Chand Kaushik, who contended that the iconic protest site lacks basic amenities such as sewage and food facilities. The petitioner argued that holding demonstrations at Jantar Mantar causes hardship to local residents and disrupts the supply of essential goods and medical services. He suggested that other locations in the national capital be considered for protest activities.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that the plea raises concerns related to access and movement in the area. “It has been stated in the plea that Jantar Mantar is not a proper site anymore for such protests due to ingress and egress issues. Supply of medical essentials etc. I think this is important... Please take instructions, Mr Solicitor. Issue notice and list this separately,” the CJI said.
The petitioner's counsel also referred to a proposed political march, stating that “Arvind Kejriwal called a town hall and decided to march to the Prime Minister's residence” and that “another July 20 incident should be avoided.” The bench declined to comment on the proposed event, with the CJI remarking, “They know how to handle it. If they cannot, come to us for mishandling. I am sure they will handle (it).”
The court has directed that the matter be listed separately.
Jantar Mantar, a historic observatory in central Delhi, has long been a site for protests and demonstrations. However, the PIL argues that it is no longer suitable due to inadequate facilities and its location in a congested area. The petition seeks a structured alternative that balances the right to protest with the convenience of residents and the smooth functioning of essential services.
The Supreme Court's decision to seek the Centre's response indicates the matter will be examined in detail, potentially shaping the future of protest venues in the national capital. The right to protest is a fundamental right under the Constitution, but it must be exercised in a manner that does not unduly inconvenience others or disrupt public order. The court's intervention could lead to a more systematic approach to designating protest spaces in Delhi.
The PIL also raises questions about the adequacy of infrastructure at existing protest sites, including sanitation, drinking water, and emergency medical facilities. The petitioner has suggested alternative locations that could be better equipped to handle large gatherings while minimising disruption to residents and traffic.
Observers note that the outcome of this case could have broader implications for how civil liberties and public convenience are balanced in urban spaces. The court's remarks, while not final, signal that it is receptive to examining the practical challenges posed by protests in crowded areas.
The matter is now awaited for further hearing, and the Centre's response will be crucial in determining the next steps. The Supreme Court has taken up the issue at a time when the use of public spaces for demonstrations continues to be a subject of debate across the country.
