SC Seeks Centre’s Clarification on Jantar Mantar’s Status as Protest Venue After October 9 Order
Supreme Court questions whether the decision followed its October 9 order, as the Centre maintains that a committee had recommended alternative venues for demonstrations.
NEW DELHI, Oct 15: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre’s response to a petition challenging the removal of Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues, raising questions about whether the decision was linked to its October 9 order.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked the government to clarify whether the decision had been influenced by the court’s oral observations or followed an independent assessment of the suitability of Jantar Mantar as a common location for public demonstrations.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, denied that the Supreme Court’s October 9 order had prompted the move. He told the bench that a committee had been formed earlier and had subsequently submitted a detailed report recommending alternative locations for protests.
The Centre’s submission came two days after Delhi Police informed the Delhi High Court on October 13 that the decision to remove Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue had been taken in accordance with the Supreme Court’s October 9 order.
The differing explanations brought the circumstances surrounding the decision under scrutiny, with the apex court seeking clarity on the process followed by the authorities.
Senior advocate Mukta Gupta, representing the petitioner, argued that the right to peaceful protest must remain meaningful and cannot be reduced to a mere formality. The petition seeks the restoration of Jantar Mantar’s status as an officially designated venue for demonstrations.
The case raises questions about the availability of designated public spaces for peaceful dissent and the procedures through which authorities determine where citizens can assemble to express their views.
The Supreme Court sought the Centre’s response as it examined the challenge to the decision and the circumstances behind the removal of the prominent protest location from the designated list.
