Supreme Court to Review Delhi Police's Jantar Mantar Denotification Decision

The Supreme Court of India has announced its intention to scrutinize the Delhi Police's recent decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as an official protest site. This announcement came during a hearing on October 15, 2026, where the court issued a notice regarding a writ petition challenging the police's Standing Order from October 11, which designated three alternative venues for protests instead.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymaya Bagchi, expressed its commitment to determining whether the Delhi Police adequately considered the implications of their decision. During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, representing the petitioner, emphasized the importance of ensuring that protest sites allow demonstrators to be heard effectively. Gupta argued that the right to protest is fundamental and should not be hindered by arbitrary relocations.

In response, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan called for the restoration of Jantar Mantar's status as a protest site, asserting that the denotification was purportedly based on a prior Supreme Court ruling. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the earlier Supreme Court decision did not serve as the basis for the recent denotification. He explained that a committee had been formed to evaluate the situation and that documented reasons supported the decision to relocate protests.

Justice Bagchi raised concerns about the implications of the denotification, particularly in relation to technological advancements and the proximity of Jantar Mantar to government buildings. He noted that the court would require the State to provide a detailed response regarding the decision and its rationale, indicating that the matter involves more than just administrative procedure.

The petition was filed by advocate Swaty Singh, who contends that moving protest sites to remote areas could significantly undermine the fundamental rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. Singh pointed out that protests often arise spontaneously in response to government actions, making it impractical to rely solely on pre-approved venues. The court's examination of this issue could have far-reaching implications for the rights of citizens to assemble and express dissent in the capital.