Delhi’s decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a protest site has sparked debate over the right to peaceful assembly and the shrinking 'space' for dissent in a democracy. Similar incidents are taking place across the world, where constitutional protections increasingly clash with restrictions imposed on citizens in the name of public order.
For more than three decades, Jantar Mantar and the stretch of road beside the historic observatory served as a designated protest site, where ordinary citizens, students, farmers, activists and political leaders gathered to make their grievances heard. The protest site's location near the country's most powerful institutions fostered a sense that the voices were being heard.
This has now changed after three alternative protest sites were identified by the Delhi Police: Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi.
The decision changes more than the address of future demonstrations. It affects how easily people can organise protests, how much they may have to spend and how close they can get to the institutions they want to hold accountable.
The decision has brought a familiar debate back into focus: how far can authorities regulate public demonstrations without undermining the constitutional right to peaceful protest?
Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution protect freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully without arms.
These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, including those relating to public order. The Supreme Court has repeatedly examined this balance.
For example, in Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1973), it recognised that governments could regulate public assemblies but could not exercise unrestricted discretion to prohibit them. "The impugned rules do not prohibit the holding of meetings but only prescribe that permission should be taken,” the judgment says.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while delivering its 2020 judgment in Amit Sahni v. State, commonly known as the Shaheen Bagh protest case, observed that:
“India, as we know it today, traces its foundation back to when the seeds of protest during our freedom struggle were sown deep, to eventually flower into a democracy. What must be kept in mind, however, is that the erstwhile mode and manner of dissent against colonial rule cannot be equated with dissent in a self-ruled democracy. Our constitutional scheme comes with the right to protest and express dissent, but with an obligation towards certain duties. Article 19, one of the cornerstones of the Constitution of India, confers upon its citizens two treasured rights i.e. the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully without arms under Article 19(1)(b). These rights, in cohesion, enable every citizen to assemble peacefully and protest against the actions or inactions of the State. The same must be respected and encouraged by the State, for the strength of a democracy such as ours lies in the same. These rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, which, inter alia, pertain to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and public order, and to the regulation by the police authorities concerned in this regard”. (Para 16)
Public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely by protesters, causing inconvenience to commuters, the court held. The apex court also said: “Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent must be expressed in designated places alone.” (Para 17)
But India’s political history shows how mass protests and demonstrations, drawing participation from citizens across the country, have shaped public discourse, influenced political decisions and, in several instances, brought about significant change.
India's protest history illustrates why this balance matters. From Jayaprakash Narayan's mobilisation in the 1970s to oppose corruption and the government of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, to the anti-CAA demonstrations and the 2020-21 farmers' movement, public gatherings have repeatedly influenced national debate. Be it the Shaheen Bagh protest, the wrestlers’ protest against Brij Bhushan, or the CJP protest against NEET paper leaks and CEC, these movements differed in their demands, scale, and methods. Most of them faced restrictions, detentions, or police intervention. What connects them is the importance of public visibility.
Other cities also regulate protest locations. Bengaluru uses Freedom Park, while Mumbai's Azad Maidan is an established demonstration venue. But providing a designated venue is not necessarily equivalent to guaranteeing meaningful access to protest. Across the world, major powers, ranging from Western democracies and supranational blocs to rival autocracies, approach protests in their own way.
United States: The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and the right to petition the government. This helped various movements like civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 1960s, anti-Vietnam War protests, women's rights campaigns and the Black Lives Matter movement.
Locations such as Washington's National Mall, Lafayette Square and New York's Union Square have hosted major protests in the past. The 2020 Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s death sparked debate over protest rights in the US. Police use of tear gas and rubber bullets against protesters raised concerns over excessive force and First Amendment protections, prompting calls for reform. The debate continues as authorities grapple with balancing civil liberties and public safety.
Canada: Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of expression under subsection (b) and peaceful assembly under subsection (c). Section 1 permits demonstrably justified limits on Charter rights.
A recent incident was Canada’s Freedom Convoy, which began as a protest against COVID-19 vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers before expanding into a wider movement against pandemic restrictions. Protesters occupied central Ottawa and blocked key border crossings, prompting then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to invoke the 1988 Emergencies Act. In January 2024, the Federal Court ruled the move unreasonable, a decision upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in January 2026. The court found that the government had exceeded its authority and violated constitutional protections, reinforcing the legal limits on emergency powers during protests.
United Kingdom: London has several prominent protest locations, including Hyde Park's Speakers' Corner, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square.
The United Kingdom does not have a single codified constitutional document guaranteeing protest rights. Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are protected through the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 10 of the Convention protects freedom of expression, while Article 11 protects freedom of peaceful assembly and association. However, legislation introduced in 2022 and 2023 expanded police powers over disruptive demonstrations.
Britain's position is therefore not that demonstrations must be confined to one remote location. Rather, historically important central spaces remain available for protest, subject to legal restrictions and policing decisions.
Europe: Article 11 of the European Convention protects peaceful assembly, while national constitutional protections also apply.
France's Place de la Bastille and Place de la République remain important protest locations. But various demonstrations have led to disputes over policing and crowd-control methods.
Germany's Article 8 explicitly protects peaceful assembly. Its Federal Constitutional Court has emphasised the democratic importance of demonstrations, although authorities can impose lawful restrictions to protect public safety.
Russia: Article 31 of Russia's Constitution guarantees peaceful assembly. In practice, strict regulations, detentions and prosecutions have severely restricted opposition demonstrations. The treatment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny became one of the most prominent examples of the restrictions. Navalny was repeatedly detained in connection with political demonstrations before he died in prison in February 2024. In Navalny v. Russia (2018), the European Court of Human Rights found violations connected to his arrests and detention during public gatherings. The Court also found that some of the measures had pursued an ulterior purpose of suppressing political pluralism.
China: Article 35 of China's Constitution recognises freedom of assembly and demonstration. However, official approval requirements, surveillance and restrictions on political dissent substantially limit these freedoms.
Across the world, certain locations have become inseparable from major political movements.
Egypt's Tahrir Square was central to the 2011 uprising against Hosni Mubarak. Ukraine's Maidan Nezalezhnosti became the centre of the 2013-14 Euromaidan movement. Istanbul's Taksim Square has hosted major labour and political demonstrations. Nairobi's Uhuru Park, Buenos Aires' Plaza de Mayo, Mexico City's Zócalo and Santiago's Plaza Baquedano have similarly served as important sites of public mobilisation.
Their constitutional protections differ. But these examples demonstrate why public squares carry political significance. Their proximity to institutions, accessibility, and historical associations can give demonstrations an influence that less visible locations may not provide.
In Britain, expanded public-order laws have increased police powers. In the United States, several states have introduced stricter penalties for disruptive protest activities. Canada faced judicial criticism for its use of emergency powers.
In India, restrictions on gatherings, preventive detention and prohibitory orders continue to generate disputes over constitutional freedoms.
Governments argue that restrictions are necessary to prevent violence, protect infrastructure and minimise disruption. Civil liberties organisations warn that broadly applied restrictions can discourage even peaceful demonstrations.
The denotification of Jantar Mantar does not automatically amount to a constitutional violation. Authorities can regulate public demonstrations, and the right to protest does not guarantee unrestricted access to every location.
But the effectiveness of the alternatives matters.
A venue that requires substantial advance payments is inaccessible to citizens fighting for their rights. A ground or a protest site far from government offices may reduce the visibility of a demonstration. Complicated permission procedures can create additional obstacles.
The larger issue is not simply whether Delhi has enough space for demonstrations. It is whether citizens can exercise their constitutional rights without unreasonable financial, geographical or administrative barriers.
Jantar Mantar became a protest site after restrictions shifted demonstrations away from Boat Club. Its denotification now brings the same issue back into focus.
The right to protest is protected by the Constitution. Whether the spaces provided for exercising that right remain accessible and effective is the question at the centre of the controversy.
Of the three alternatives, Ramlila Maidan has hosted major political gatherings, including demonstrations during Anna Hazare's anti-corruption movement.
However, organising a large protest there can be expensive.
According to civic officials, booking the ground costs Rs 50,000 per day, along with a refundable security deposit of Rs 55,000. Including taxes, the initial payment can reach approximately Rs 1.21 lakh. A smaller portion accommodating around 150 people remains available free of charge.
At the time of the reported announcement, the ground was booked until December 29, leaving limited immediate availability. Organisers must also obtain a no-objection certificate from Delhi Police.
Burari Ground and CBD Ground present another challenge: distance. Both are located away from central government institutions, potentially reducing the visibility of demonstrations. The location of a protest matters because demonstrators often want to be heard by the institutions responsible for the decisions they oppose.
There is also a contradiction. For example, Ramlila Maidan is located near busy commercial roads, hospitals, and municipal offices, but officials have previously acknowledged that large gatherings here disrupt traffic on surrounding roads. If preventing inconvenience is a central consideration, the suitability of alternative protest sites must be assessed by the same standards.
The issue here is about regulating the conditions of a protest and making the exercise of that right dependent on resources, location and administrative discretion.
(In Context looks beyond the headline to understand the story behind the story — the events that led to it, the forces shaping it, the people affected by it and what it tells us about the world around us.)