Was our order relied upon to de-notify Jantar Mantar as protest site? Supreme Court seeks Centre's response

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked for the Central government's response to a plea challenging the Union Home Ministry's de-notification of Delhi's Jantar Mantar as a protest site.

Pertinently, the Delhi Police on October 13 told the Delhi High Court that the decision was taken based on the Supreme Court's order of October 9. However, the Central government today denied the same.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the Centre,

"[Was it de-notified] Because of some oral observations of the Court, or was there an application of mind with regard to the site and its efficacy in being used as a common protest site?"

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, replied,

"The Court's judgment is not the basis of the decision. The committee was constituted much before. The committee has given a detailed report."

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said,

"...we are asking today itself that Jantar Mantar be notified again. The denotification has been done purportedly on the Court's directive. Apparently, on October 9, there was a directive that Jantar Mantar should be denotified."

The Court replied,

"You have challenged the denotification. We are issuing notice. Let them come and file their reply. We will see what the reasons are."

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta then intervened, saying,

"The fundamental right of a citizen to carry out a protest cannot be scuttled because this Court has already ruled in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan that the place has to be somewhere near where protesters can be heard. New Delhi is not meant for a select few."

Justice Bagchi responded,

"We are issuing notice. We are getting a response from them. After the response, if we are not satisfied, the law will follow its course. You have laid out your case. First, you have relied on the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan judgment. Second, you have indicated that Jantar Mantar is near the administrative establishment which runs the country, and therefore should not be shifted. We are calling upon the State to respond."

CJI Kant added,

"We ask you to argue because we have done our homework. We know the points. It requires consideration. That is why we are issuing notice."

A standing order de-notifying Jantar Mantar was issued by Delhi Commissioner of Police Anurag Kumar dated October 11.

According to the order, the decision was taken in line with the recommendations of a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to examine alternate venues for citizens' protests and demonstrations.

"Based on the Committee's recommendations, Jantar Mantar as a protest venue has been de-notified. Three new venues viz Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground, East Delhi have been designated as new venues for organizing protest/demonstrations," the order reads.

A petition was subsequently filed in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court challenging the notification. The petition before the Supreme Court, filed by advocate Swaty Singh, contends that the move violates the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

While the State can regulate these rights in the interest of public order, the petition states that such regulation cannot operate as a prohibition or render the exercise of these rights illusory.

It further argues that the location of a protest site is central to the protests.

"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 petition states.

According to the plea, proximity to the concerned institutions, accessibility to the public and visibility to the intended audience directly affect a protest's effectiveness.

[Read live account of hearing]