{"id":9265,"date":"2026-08-05T09:32:07","date_gmt":"2026-08-05T09:32:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/?p=9265"},"modified":"2026-08-05T09:32:08","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T09:32:08","slug":"will-jantar-mantar-lose-its-status-as-protest-venue-sc-to-hear-plea-seeks-centres-reply","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/will-jantar-mantar-lose-its-status-as-protest-venue-sc-to-hear-plea-seeks-centres-reply\/","title":{"rendered":"Will Jantar Mantar Lose Its Status as Protest Venue? SC to Hear Plea, Seeks Centre\u2019s Reply"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

New Delhi:<\/strong> The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether Jantar Mantar in New Delhi should continue to serve as the designated venue for protests and demonstrations, following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that argues the site is no longer suitable for large gatherings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court issued a notice to the Central Government, seeking its response to the petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana observed that the issues raised in the petition are significant and deserve detailed consideration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the petitioner, Jantar Mantar was designated as a protest site at a time when demonstrations involved relatively small crowds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, with the rise of social media and digital mobilisation, thousands of people can now gather within a short period, leading to traffic congestion, disruption of essential services, and inconvenience to residents and commuters in the surrounding area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that concerns relating to public movement, the supply of essential services, and the impact on people living nearby are serious and require examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Bench directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to obtain instructions from the Central Government and file its response. The Court also ordered that the matter be heard separately.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petition has requested the Court to reconsider the practice of using Jantar Mantar as the regular protest venue and instead identify a larger and safer location in Delhi, such as Ramlila Maidan, where large demonstrations can take place without significantly affecting the daily lives of the public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petitioner argues that such a move would protect both the constitutional right to protest and the rights of ordinary citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court, however, has not passed any order directing that protests be shifted from Jantar Mantar. It has only sought the Centre’s response and will decide the issue after hearing all parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The petition also refers to earlier Supreme Court rulings, including the 2018 Jantar Mantar case and the 2020 Shaheen Bagh judgment, where the Court held that while peaceful protest is a constitutional right, it cannot be exercised in a manner that indefinitely disrupts public roads or causes undue hardship to others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The present case will examine whether the existing arrangement at Jantar Mantar remains appropriate in light of changing circumstances.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether Jantar Mantar in New Delhi should continue to serve as the designated venue for protests and demonstrations, following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that argues the site is no longer suitable for large gatherings. The Court issued a notice to the Central Government, seeking its … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9088,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_wppp_is_locked":false,"_wppp_selected_plans":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[29,1],"tags":[1380,140,248,1824,1828,1825,212,651,612,1827,163,1826,1829,32],"class_list":["post-9265","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories","category-supreme-court","tag-centre","tag-cji-surya-kant","tag-constitutional-rights","tag-delhi-protests","tag-delhi-traffic","tag-jantar-mantar","tag-justice-joymalya-bagchi","tag-justice-v-mohana","tag-pil","tag-protest-site","tag-public-interest-litigation","tag-ramlila-maidan","tag-right-to-protest","tag-supreme-court"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9265","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9265"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9265\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9269,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9265\/revisions\/9269"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9088"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawsandlegals.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}