Calling Jantar Mantar a public road that should never have been earmarked as a protest venue, Delhi Police has defended its de-notification before the Supreme Court, against a petition that says the move violates the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.
New Delhi: No one has a fundamental right to protest at a particular place, Delhi Police has told the Supreme Court in a counter affidavit explaining why Jantar Mantar was de-notified as a designated protest site, citing its limited capacity and its proximity to sensitive government institutions and foreign embassies [Swaty Singh v. Union of India & Ors.].
Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar filed the affidavit, which was placed before the Court on November 3, 2026, in reply to a petition by advocate Swaty Singh challenging the de-notification. The Court has not yet ruled on the petition.
The police’s account
The affidavit states that the Commissioner de-notified the site on the unanimous recommendation of a Ministry of Home Affairs committee, and that the decision is administrative and executive in nature. Jantar Mantar, it says, can hold about 1,500 people, a figure the protests by the Cockroach Janta Party in July far exceeded.
Within 3 to 4 km of the site, the police say, are about 78 embassies and missions and 99 Central government offices with a combined daily footfall of 1,46,040, besides about 64,500 residents in nearby housing. For August 1 to 27, the affidavit lists about 250 distress calls, 109 theft FIRs, 10 vehicle theft FIRs, 254 property-loss claims, 23 FIRs for public order violations, rioting and defacement, and 14 cases under the Delhi Police Act. It names Ramlila Maidan, the CBD Ground and Burari Ground as alternative venues.
Answering the petitioner’s argument about proximity to the seat of government, the affidavit states:
“In the era of digital technology and widespread use of social media, the geographical proximity of a protest site to the seat of the Government has ceased to be relevant and has become redundant.”
What the petition contends
The petitioner says de-notifying Jantar Mantar violates the rights to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. The State may regulate these rights in the interest of public order, the petition says, but regulation cannot operate as a prohibition or make the exercise of the rights illusory.
The location of a protest, it argues, is central to it: proximity to the institutions concerned, accessibility to the public and visibility to the intended audience directly affect how effective a protest can be.
Where the matter stands
The affidavit records the police’s position only; both the petitioner’s challenge and the State’s justification are yet to be decided by the Court. Other matters on protest sites in Delhi are also before the Supreme Court, including a traders’ plea over the occupation of a protest venue and a challenge to facial surveillance at designated sites.
Why the hearing matters
Where may the State direct protests to take place before regulation turns into a denial of the right itself? The question returns to the Court with competing emphases: the petition stresses visibility and access, while the police stress capacity, public order and the needs of nearby residents and offices.
The police’s claim that social media has made physical proximity to the seat of government “redundant” is likely to be closely tested, since the petition argues the opposite. How the Court weighs the two will shape the space for demonstrations in central Delhi.
Case Title: Swaty Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (case title to be verified)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Development: Counter affidavit of the Delhi Police Commissioner placed on record, November 3, 2026
Petitioner: Advocate Swaty Singh