“We will see what the reasons are,” the Chief Justice said as the Supreme Court sent notice to the authorities on the Jantar Mantar de-notification, without putting the protest site back in the meantime.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on petitions that challenge the Delhi Police’s de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. It said it would look into whether there had been application of mind to the site and to its efficacy as a common protest venue, and it did not restore the site on an interim basis [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan and connected matters].
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the pleas. Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Mukta Gupta pressed for restoration, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the authorities.
Notice, and the question it carries
Asking for Jantar Mantar to be restored that very day, Sankaranarayanan said several petitions sought the same relief and that the de-notification purportedly relied on the Court’s October 9 directions. The Chief Justice replied: “You have challenged the denotification. We are issuing notice. Let them come and file their reply. We will see what the reasons are.”
The Bench put the question it wanted answered:
“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’s answer was: “The Court’s judgment is not the basis of the decision. The committee was constituted much before. The committee has given a detailed report.”
ALSO READ: Delhi Police De-Notifies Jantar Mantar As Designated Protest Site, Names Three New Venues
The 2018 judgment in the petitioners’ hands
Relying on the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, Mukta Gupta argued:
“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.”
Justice Bagchi summarised the petitioners’ position: they rely on that judgment and say that Jantar Mantar, close to the administrative establishment that runs the country, should not be shifted. He added that technology too has to be considered. “We are getting a response from them. After the response, if we are not satisfied, the law will follow its course,” he said. The Chief Justice added: “We know the points. It requires consideration. That is why we are issuing notice.”
What the police order says
A standing order of October 11 removed Jantar Mantar from the list and designated Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi as protest venues. The Delhi Police recorded that it followed the recommendations of a Union Home Ministry committee. Challenges to it are pending in the Supreme Court, including one by Advocate Swaty Singh, and in the Delhi High Court.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court: Youth Congress Chief Challenges Jantar Mantar De-Notification As Protest Site
How the batch got here
On October 9, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that Metro and train services in Delhi could not be completely prohibited ahead of the October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and directed that services run in a regulated manner. On October 10, Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi filed a contempt petition alleging Metro station closures and train cancellations in breach of that order, along with complaints of mass detentions and a mobile internet shutdown.
Justices Bagchi and Mohana sat specially on Sunday, October 11. They recorded a prima facie case, issued notice to the alleged contemnors, and passed ad-interim directions that Metro and rail services function normally, that people move freely, that internet services remain undisturbed and that no one be illegally detained. They also ordered a Section 163 notice board near the Court removed. Habeas petitions, including one by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, were heard with it.
The allegations in these petitions, and the authorities’ responses to them, are untested. Notice has been issued, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
Case: Batch of petitions on the October 10 Delhi protests, including Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan [Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 63801/2026] and connected matters
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Hearing: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Dr A.M. Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, N. Hariharan, C.U. Singh, Dr Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Shoeb Alam, Sanjay Hegde, Indira Jaising, Mukta Gupta and Gaurav Bhatia, with Advocates Vrinda Grover and Nizam Pasha, for various petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the authorities