The Delhi Police’s move to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site has sparked sharp criticism for being arbitrary. Under the Union Home Ministry, the police informed the Delhi High Court that the denotification followed a Supreme Court direction on October 9. The order was issued by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant while hearing pleas against restrictions on movement into and within Delhi to prevent protests on October 10 seeking resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The Bench had asked the Centre to identify a spacious and open alternative site for protests and observed that demonstrations in and around Jantar Mantar cause inconvenience to commuters.
It is true that protests can lead to traffic jams and inconvenience. But such arguments are as valid as arguments often raised against democracy itself. There is a conservative view that democracy slows down decision making, that elections hamper development and economic activity, and therefore there should be less politics and fewer elections. The BJP’s proposal for simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and Assemblies once in five years rests on similar reasoning that fundamentally questions democratic legitimacy.
The justification for banning protests at Jantar Mantar does not stand scrutiny. It goes against the very idea of public deliberation and dissent which are essential to democracy. In most democracies, a centrally located protest site is part of urban design, as seen in Washington DC and London.
Protesters are often marginalised groups who have no representation in decision making forums. Street protest is a result of their powerlessness and is a tool for those who have no other means to be heard. To push them away from the centre of power and make them invisible is a coercive policing logic that denies them the chance to be seen and heard.
The importance of Jantar Mantar lies in its proximity to power. It is situated close to Parliament and Rashtrapati Bhavan. If protesters are relegated to the outskirts of the city in the name of public order, it amounts to confining them to the very marginality they are seeking to overcome.
If protests are allowed only far from seat of power, the logic can be stretched to say people should protest only from their homes. That is not how democracy functions. The right to protest includes right to be visible to those in power. Denying a central space like Jantar Mantar effectively weakens that right.
The Supreme Court’s concern for commuter convenience is understandable, but convenience cannot outweigh constitutional rights. Traffic management is an administrative challenge that police must handle through regulation, not through banishing protests to distant locations. A large alternative site on the periphery may be spacious but defeats purpose of protest which is to communicate grievance to government.
Democracy requires tolerance for some disruption. Elections, campaigns, VIP movements also cause inconvenience, yet they are not banned. Singling out protests at Jantar Mantar suggests selective approach to public order where voices of dissent are treated as nuisance rather than as legitimate democratic expression.
If government is to identify alternative site, it must ensure it remains accessible, central and does not render protests symbolic and ineffective. Otherwise, denotification will be seen as attempt to sanitise capital’s centre of any dissent, making power less accountable to people.
