New Delhi, Aug 03 : The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the identification of an alternative location for public demonstrations in the national capital, arguing that Jantar Mantar is no longer suitable for large-scale protests due to the inconvenience caused to nearby residents and essential services.
A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notices to the Centre and other concerned authorities while taking cognisance of the petition filed by Satish Chand Kaushik. The court also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to obtain instructions from the government regarding the concerns raised in the plea.
The petition contends that frequent protests at Jantar Mantar obstruct movement in the area, affect residents’ daily lives and interfere with the transportation of medical supplies and other essential goods. It urges the authorities to designate a more suitable location that balances the constitutional right to protest with public convenience.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice observed that the matter involved important issues concerning accessibility and movement around the protest site. The Bench noted that the petition highlighted difficulties related to entry and exit routes, as well as the impact on emergency services, making the issue worthy of judicial consideration.
The petitioner’s counsel also referred to a proposed political march towards the Prime Minister’s residence, arguing that preventive measures were necessary to avoid a repeat of previous incidents involving public disorder.
The Bench, however, declined to comment on the proposed political programme, expressing confidence that the authorities were capable of handling law and order issues. The court remarked that any concerns over the manner in which such events are managed could be brought before it if required.
After issuing notices, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be listed separately for further hearing. The outcome of the case could have wider implications for the regulation of protest venues in the national capital while seeking to strike a balance between democratic rights and public convenience.