Polity

Right to Protest: Article 19 and the Jantar Mantar Debate

A Delhi High Court judge asked why Jantar Mantar should not be shut as a protest site. Aakar Patel argues that a fundamental right has become a police permission. What Article 19 and the Supreme Court say.

Jasvin Thinks2026-10-089 mins

Right to Protest: Article 19 and the Jantar Mantar Debate — A protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, in July 2026.

On 7 August 2026, Justice Amit Mahajan of the Delhi High Court asked the Centre why it was not considering shutting Jantar Mantar as a protest venue. He was hearing a plea by the All India Dalit Christian Rights Protection Committee, which had waited since 9 July for the Delhi Police to decide on a three-hour protest by about 75 people. Three days later, columnist Aakar Patel argued in the Deccan Chronicle that the episode shows how the right to peaceful assembly under Article 19 has turned into a system of police permission.

Is the right to protest a fundamental right in India?

Yes. Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution gives all citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, and Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech. The State may impose only reasonable restrictions, on grounds of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order. The Supreme Court has held that protests can be regulated and confined to designated places, but not banned altogether.

Why should the city be put to ransom unnecessarily?
Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court, oral remark during the hearing on 7 August 2026 (as reported by LiveLaw)

What Actually Happened?

The All India Dalit Christian Rights Protection Committee wanted to hold a stationary protest at Jantar Mantar on 10 August 2026, from 10 am to 1 pm. Its demand was that Dalit Christians be included among the Scheduled Castes. Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose told the court that the group had applied on 9 July and that the police had neither granted nor refused permission. He cited the Supreme Court's Shaheen Bagh ruling, which recognised the right to protest.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, for the Centre, said the Supreme Court is already examining whether Jantar Mantar should remain a designated protest site. He pointed to prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (earlier Section 144 of the CrPC) and to security arrangements before Independence Day. He also said the authorities could not be sure that 75 protesters would not become many more.

Justice Mahajan said that, in his personal view, protests should not take place inside the city because they affect the public, though he added that it was ultimately the government's call. These were oral remarks and not part of a ruling. The court recorded the Centre's assurance that the police would decide the application by the next day, and disposed of the plea without ruling on the merits.

What followed is less well documented. A community news site reported that the committee held a demonstration at Jantar Mantar on 10 August 2026. We could not find a published copy of the police decision, so the terms on which permission was given are not known.

Concept: What Does Article 19 Guarantee?

Article 19(1) lists six freedoms that belong to citizens. Two of them make up the right to protest: freedom of speech and expression in clause (a), and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms in clause (b). The right has two built-in conditions. The assembly must be peaceful, and it must be unarmed.

Article 19(3) allows the State to make laws that impose reasonable restrictions on this right. Only two grounds are permitted: the sovereignty and integrity of India, and public order. A restriction must be made by law, must relate to one of these grounds and must be reasonable. Courts decide whether it is reasonable.

The right and its limits under Article 19

Element	What the Constitution says	What it means in practice
The right	Article 19(1)(b): to assemble peaceably and without arms	Citizens may hold meetings, dharnas and processions
Conditions	Peaceful and unarmed	A violent or armed gathering is not protected
Permitted limits	Article 19(3): sovereignty and integrity of India, public order	Rules on place, time, route and numbers
Test	The restriction must be reasonable	Courts can strike down a blanket or arbitrary ban
Who holds it	Citizens only	Foreigners cannot claim Article 19

What Has the Supreme Court Said?

1973 Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad: the State may regulate public meetings on streets, but an officer cannot be given unguided power to refuse permission.
2012 Ramlila Maidan Incident case: the Court criticises the midnight police action on a sleeping crowd and affirms the right to assemble peacefully.
2018 Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India: a complete ban on protests at Jantar Mantar and the Boat Club is not permissible; the police are told to frame guidelines for regulated use.
2020 Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (Shaheen Bagh): the right to protest is recognised, but public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely and protests must be in designated places.
2026 The Centre tells the Delhi High Court that the Supreme Court is examining whether Jantar Mantar should stay a designated protest site.

Read together, the rulings set out a balance. The State can decide where, when and how a protest is held. It cannot remove every meaningful place to protest, and it cannot leave the decision to an official's unguided discretion. The right of protesters has to be weighed against the right of other citizens to move freely and live in peace.

Patel's Argument: A Right Held by the Police

Patel, who chairs Amnesty International India, argues that the constitutional text and daily practice have moved far apart. To protest, citizens must apply to the local police station. The police may approve, deny or not respond, which is what led the Dalit Christian group to court. In his words: 'That is where the real right is held.'

He contrasts this with the United States and Europe, where small groups with placards outside offices and businesses are common. In India, he writes, such a gathering would be broken up or not allowed. Where protest is permitted, it is confined to designated areas: Jantar Mantar in Delhi, Town Hall and Freedom Park in Bengaluru, and Azad Maidan in Mumbai. He concludes that India has criminalised protest and that the restrictions imposed are not reasonable.

Patel also offers a reason why governments resist protest. Every time Indians have mobilised, he says, against the farm laws, against the National Register of Citizens and against exam paper leaks, the government has given way. He describes India's civil society as brave but small, and calls on citizens to reclaim their rights peacefully.

The Other Side: Public Order and Other Citizens

Patel's is a strong opinion, and the opposing case has weight. The Supreme Court in the Shaheen Bagh ruling held that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely. Residents near Jantar Mantar had earlier complained of noise and disruption, which led to the litigation decided in 2018. The Centre's position in the August hearing rested on public order: prohibitory orders, Independence Day security and uncertainty about crowd size.

The disagreement is therefore about degree. Few argue that protests need no regulation, and the Supreme Court has ruled out a total ban. The contested questions are narrower. Is a designated site that is hard to obtain a real venue? Can the police stay silent on an application for a month? And should a protest be visible to the people it is addressed to?

Connect the Dots

Article 19(1)(b) gives citizens the right to assemble peaceably and without arms
Article 19(3) lets the State restrict it reasonably for public order
Police permission and designated sites become the main tools of regulation
The Supreme Court allows regulation but rejects a blanket ban (2018) and indefinite occupation of roads (2020)
In 2026 a protest application goes unanswered for a month and reaches the High Court
The debate returns: is the right regulated, or reduced to a permission?

Constitution of India, Legislative Department (Official text of the Constitution, including Article 19)
India 106th in Democracy Rank: What Decline Means (Our deep dive on how global indices rate civil liberties in India)
UGC Bans Caste Bias on Campus: What It Means (A related debate on caste, rights and institutions)

The Debate

View	Core argument	Evidence cited
Rights first	A right that needs police permission is no longer a right	A month without a reply to a 75-person protest (Patel)
Public order	Protests must not disrupt roads, emergency services or security	Prohibitory orders and Independence Day arrangements (Centre's submission)
Judicial balance	Regulate, do not prohibit; designated places, no indefinite occupation	Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018); Amit Sahni (2020)
Move protests out	Protests inside the city inconvenience the general public	Oral remarks of the Delhi High Court judge, 7 August 2026
Visibility matters	A protest far from the seat of power cannot be heard by those it addresses	Patel's point on designated areas

What Could Happen Next?

[object Object]
[object Object]
[object Object]

Why Does It Matter for India?

Area	Why it matters
Democracy	Protest lets citizens speak between elections
Marginalised groups	Small groups without media or money depend on assembly to be heard
Accountability	Peaceful mobilisation has led governments to reconsider laws and decisions
Rule of law	Clear rules on permission reduce arbitrary policing
Public convenience	Regulation protects the movement and safety of other citizens

What Should We Watch?

1. The Supreme Court's decision on whether Jantar Mantar remains a designated protest site.
2. Any Delhi Police standing order that sets a time limit for deciding protest applications.
3. How often prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS are used across a whole city.
4. Whether other High Courts follow or differ from the Delhi judge's remarks.
5. The pending question of Scheduled Caste status for Dalit Christians, which was the subject of the protest.

Bottom Line

The right to protest in India is a fundamental right with limits. The Supreme Court has said it may be regulated and confined to designated places, but not extinguished. The August 2026 hearing showed how much depends on the police officer who receives an application. Patel's warning is that a right exercised only by permission can fade without any law being changed.

Key Terms

Article 19(1)(b) — The fundamental right of all citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Reasonable restrictions — Limits the State may place on Article 19 freedoms by law, on listed grounds, which courts can review.
Public order — The even tempo of community life; a narrower idea than law and order and a ground for restricting assembly.
Section 163, BNSS — The provision (earlier Section 144 of the CrPC) that lets a magistrate issue urgent orders, including a ban on gatherings, to prevent danger or disturbance.
Designated protest site — A place notified by the authorities where protests are allowed, such as Jantar Mantar in Delhi or Azad Maidan in Mumbai.
Oral observation — A remark made by a judge during a hearing. It is not part of the order and is not binding.
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 — The Presidential order that lists Scheduled Castes; it currently covers only Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists.
Civil society — Groups outside government and business, such as NGOs, unions and citizens' associations.

Practice Question (Mains-Style)

Q. The right to peaceful assembly under Article 19(1)(b) can be regulated but not extinguished. Discuss with reference to Supreme Court rulings on designated protest sites. (250 words, GS Paper II)