“How can there be a blanket ban?” the Delhi High Court asked the police, questioning the denial of permission for a protest at Jantar Mantar and suggesting that conditions or an alternative venue, rather than an outright refusal, were the lawful course.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has questioned the Delhi Police over its refusal to permit a proposed protest at Jantar Mantar, asking how there could be “a blanket ban” on a demonstration, and observing that the authorities were free to impose reasonable conditions or suggest an alternative venue instead of denying permission altogether [Dr. Raj Shekhawat v. State].
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was hearing a plea challenging the police’s refusal to allow a peaceful protest planned for September 20 against the recently notified University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The petitioner is associated with the Karni Sena.
Permission granted, then withdrawn
The petitioner’s counsel told the Court that although the police had earlier granted permission to hold the protest at Jantar Mantar on September 20, a fresh letter was issued on September 15 withdrawing that permission. As per the letter, the police apprehended that more people than the permitted number would join the protest. Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma submitted that the decision had been taken having regard to Supreme Court guidelines and standing orders regulating protests, and that Jantar Mantar was “a very sensitive area.”
The ASG added that the petitioner had not been singled out, others too had been refused, and that the scale of social-media traction around the protest had led the executive to fear that the gathering would “overspill.” The petitioner’s counsel countered that online viewership could not be equated with the number of people actually turning up at Jantar Mantar, and that the police had adequate control over the area.
‘How can you refuse them?’
The Court was unpersuaded that an apprehension of higher-than-expected numbers could justify a total refusal, rather than a conditional permission. Justice Sharma pressed the police on why the request could not be allowed subject to restrictions:
“Just because you apprehend that some people will come… On the last date also, I very clearly said that you can put any restrictions or conditions on them and you can permit them. And they will be there only for few hours. They will not be proceeding from there also. How can you refuse them?”
The Court then asked the ASG whether, if Jantar Mantar was considered unsuitable, the venue could be changed so that permission could be granted, framing the core of its concern as a question the State had to answer:
“I am asking you to put any condition. If not Jantar Mantar, then suggest some other place. I am only asking the State how can there be a blanket ban?”
When the ASG said that a change of venue could be considered, the Court listed the matter for further hearing on Tuesday.
The background: a protest against the UGC 2026 Regulations
The proposed protest seeks the withdrawal of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The petitioner has relied on a Supreme Court order that kept the Regulations in abeyance after the apex court prima facie found that certain provisions suffered from ambiguities and raised the possibility of misuse. The Regulations were framed with the stated objective of promoting “equity” in higher education institutions and addressing caste-based discrimination on campuses, but have drawn opposition from some quarters, who contend that they disadvantage students of the “general” category. These are the competing characterisations of the parties in the wider debate; the present matter before the High Court concerns only the legality of the refusal of protest permission, not the validity of the Regulations, which is a separate question pending before the Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, a single judge had directed the petitioner to submit a fresh application to the Delhi Police seeking permission for the September 20 protest, which led to the grant, and then the impugned withdrawal, of permission.
ALSO READ: Centre Moves To Wipe Out FIRs Against Student Protesters Using Article 142
Why it matters
The Court’s questioning goes to a core constitutional guarantee: the right to assemble peaceably and without arms under Article 19(1)(b), and the closely related freedom of speech and expression, of which the right to protest is a recognised facet. The law permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on these freedoms in the interest of public order, but the settled position, articulated by the Supreme Court in decisions such as those arising from the Ramlila Maidan incident, is that such restrictions must be proportionate and tailored to the specific apprehension, and that a blanket prohibition on a peaceful assembly is ordinarily impermissible where the concern can be addressed by conditions, caps on numbers, timing limits, or a change of venue.
That is precisely the distinction the High Court drew: an apprehension that a crowd may be larger than expected can justify regulation, but not, without more, an outright refusal. The Court’s insistence that the police either impose conditions or offer an alternative site reflects the principle that the right to protest cannot be extinguished by administrative caution alone, and that the least-restrictive-means approach applies to the policing of assemblies. The matter now returns for hearing with the possibility of a conditional permission or an alternative venue on the table; the Court has not yet passed final directions, and the police retain the ability to regulate the protest in accordance with law.
Case Title: Dr. Raj Shekhawat v. State
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
Date of Hearing: September 17, 2026