At the Supreme Court hearing on the Jantar Mantar de-notification, a Bench remark about protest in a digital age drew a one-line retort from Senior Advocate N. Hariharan: if voices carry from afar, why come to Delhi at all?
New Delhi: Issuing notice on petitions that seek restoration of Jantar Mantar as a protest site, the Supreme Court on Thursday heard a short exchange between Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Senior Advocate N. Hariharan that went to the heart of the dispute over the de-notification [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan and connected matters].
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi formed the Bench. Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Mukta Gupta and N. Hariharan were among counsel for the petitioners, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the authorities.
The Bench’s question, and the notice
The Bench asked whether the de-notification had been prompted “because of some oral observations of the Court, or was there an application of mind with regard to the site and its efficacy in being used as a common protest site?” The Solicitor General replied that the Court’s judgment was not the basis, as the committee was constituted much earlier and had given a detailed report.
The Court issued notice and called for the State’s reply. Justice Bagchi said that if the Court is not satisfied after the response, “the law will follow its course”.
Digital voices, and Hariharan’s reply
During the hearing on the de-notification, Justice Bagchi remarked that the location of a protest may matter less in a digitally connected age:
“This is the time of digital technology, the voices can be heard from different far-off locations as well.”
Hariharan responded:
“If that is so, why do we need to be in Delhi? We can do it from Kerala.”
The petitioners’ argument is that Jantar Mantar’s proximity to the seat of government is what gives a protest there its meaning. Summing up their case, Justice Bagchi noted that they relied on the 2018 judgment in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and argued that Jantar Mantar is near the administrative establishment that runs the country and should not be shifted, adding that technology must also be considered. These were oral remarks during the hearing and not findings.
ALSO READ: Delhi Police De-Notifies Jantar Mantar As Designated Protest Site, Names Three New Venues
“New Delhi is not meant for a select few”
Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta had pressed the same point from the petitioners’ side: “The fundamental right of a citizen to carry out a protest cannot be scuttled because this Court has already ruled in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan that the place has to be somewhere near where protesters can be heard. New Delhi is not meant for a select few.”
Background: from Boat Club to Ramlila Ground
For decades, Jantar Mantar has been Delhi’s principal protest venue. In 2018, in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, a Bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan held that a complete ban on demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and the Boat Club was impermissible. The Court balanced the right to protest against the rights of residents and directed the police to frame guidelines for regulated use of the area.
On October 11, a day after the protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the Delhi Police issued a standing order de-notifying Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and naming Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi as the new venues, citing the recommendations of a Union Home Ministry committee. Petitions against the order, including one by Advocate Swaty Singh contending that protests moved to distant grounds lose their communicative purpose, are pending in the Supreme Court, and the Indian Youth Congress has raised a similar challenge in the Delhi High Court.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court: Youth Congress Chief Challenges Jantar Mantar De-Notification As Protest Site
The challenge is at the notice stage. The authorities’ reply is yet to be filed, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
Case: Petitions challenging the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site, heard with Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan and connected matters
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Hearing: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Mukta Gupta and N. Hariharan among counsel for the petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the authorities