A 2018 Supreme Court ruling that a complete ban on demonstrations at Jantar Mantar is impermissible is the foundation of a fresh plea against the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.
New Delhi: Advocate Swaty Singh has moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi Police standing order of October 11, 2026, which brought about the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and shifted protests and demonstrations to Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi. She contends that the move violates the rights to free speech and to peaceful assembly [Plea by Advocate Swaty Singh against de-notification of Jantar Mantar].
Delhi Commissioner of Police Anurag Kumar signed the standing order. The petition was filed through advocates Lakshay Saini and Tushar Gupta, with Senior Advocates Mukta Gupta and Nandita Rao to argue it. It is likely to be listed on October 15, and the Bench that will hear it has not been notified.
The 2018 ruling the petition leans on
The petition relies on Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, decided by the Supreme Court in 2018. A Bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan held there 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, rather than shutting it off.
Location as part of the message
At the core of the challenge is the argument that the location of a protest is not incidental to it. According to the petition, proximity, accessibility and visibility decide whether a demonstration reaches the people it is aimed at, and relocating protests to distant parts of the city can substantially defeat the communicative purpose of a peaceful assembly, leaving grievances “out of sight, out of mind”. It puts the point this way:
“The right to protest is not merely a right to assemble at a designated physical space; it is a right to communicate grievances…”
The order offends Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, the petitioner argues, and regulation in the interest of public order cannot be stretched into prohibition or used to make these rights illusory. In the petition’s account, moving protests to outlying areas materially increases the burden on those who wish to take part.
ALSO READ: Delhi Police De-Notifies Jantar Mantar As Designated Protest Site, Names Three New Venues
Three new grounds, but no rules yet
Whether the three alternative venues are workable is also questioned. The petition contends that naming them does not show they are suitable unless their accessibility, availability, location, affordability and practical usability have been examined, and it links this to the Supreme Court’s own order of October 9, on which the police have relied.
The petition further calls the standing order arbitrary and procedurally deficient. It took immediate administrative effect, the petitioner says, but the detailed revised standard operating procedure for the three new grounds is to be issued separately, so there is at present no complete mechanism through which people can actually seek to protest there. The standing order itself records that it follows the recommendations of a Union Home Ministry committee on alternate protest venues.
The backdrop
A day after the October 10 protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, Jantar Mantar was de-notified. Before the Delhi High Court, the Delhi Police has cited the Supreme Court’s October 9 order in defending its decision; that Court is hearing a petition by the Indian Youth Congress against the police’s protest norms and has issued notice on part of that plea.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Youth Congress Plea Against Delhi Police Protest Norms
What the Court has before it
The grounds set out above are the petitioner’s contentions. The response of the Delhi Police and the Union government to the petition is not yet on record, and the Supreme Court has not yet heard the matter or expressed any view on it. The Court is now asked to decide whether shifting protests to three grounds away from the centre of the capital amounts to permissible regulation or an impermissible ban, the question at the heart of the 2018 ruling.
Case Title: Plea by Advocate Swaty Singh against de-notification of Jantar Mantar (cause title and case number not reported)
Court: Supreme Court of India; Bench yet to be notified
Challenged order: Delhi Police standing order dated October 11, 2026
Likely listing: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Mukta Gupta and Nandita Rao, with advocates Lakshay Saini and Tushar Gupta, for the petitioner