On October 12, the Delhi police issued a notification that de-notified Jantar Mantar as a protest site[i]. Instead, three new locations were introduced, all of which remain considerably away from the Parliament. Since the decision came merely days after the protest against the Special Intensive Revision exercise, the de-notification has not been well-received and has since been challenged in the Supreme Court, with various activists and scholars claiming that having Jantar Mantar as a protest site sends an ideological message due to its close proximity to the Parliament.

This decision has sparked various questions: What does the Constitution of India entail about designating sites for a protest? Is it mandatory for the government to grant us a protest site? Moreover, in a country where freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, who regulates the said sphere?

Constitutional Provisions

The Constitution, widely regarded as the supreme law of the nation, guarantees several fundamental rights that are enjoyed by every citizen of the country. One such right is laid under Article 19, which gives us the freedom of speech[ii]. This article comprises several sub-clauses, which provide different ways in which this right can be exercised.

Article 19(1)(a) grants the freedom of speech and expression, and 19(1)(b) allows us to assemble peacefully without arms. The right to protest has not been explicitly mentioned, but is intrinsically recognised through these provisions. Through the two sub-clauses, individuals can gather and express dissent, subject to certain reasonable restrictions laid in the remaining clauses.

The right to protest has been recognised in judicial precedents such as Himmatlal Shah v. Police Commissioner, where the Court struck down a rule that empowered the police commissioner to impose a complete ban on all public meetings and processions. The court held that the state could only make rules in aid of the right to assembly, and only reasonable restrictions can be imposed[iii].

Protest site: An Option or a Compulsion?

Even though express provisions along with the restrictions are given regarding freedom of speech, the necessity of a protest site is left to interpretation.

The Constitution doesn’t mention the compulsion of a protest site. The article specifically discusses the rights from an individual perspective.  It does not specify the need for a protest site. So then, why do we require a designated site to protest?

The necessity for a protest site was recognised at a later stage, when the document was administered. Such public gatherings typically happen on a large scale, with various people joining in as the movement grows. Because of this, it can cause disturbance to the locals who do not wish to be part of the protest and are continuing their lives. This can compromise with the same rights that are granted to others, and may cause restriction to movement, liberty and their ability to make a free choice.

Such large-scale movements can disrupt the order and functioning of the society. Because of this, the need for a protest site arises. Presence of a designated protest site ensures democratic participation, and makes sure that everyone’s voices are heard and protected.

Various Courts have ruled in favour of this. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India[iv], the Justices ruled, “Each fundamental right, be it of an individual or a class, does not exist in isolation and has to be balanced with every other contrasting right.” This position was further supported in Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police[v], where the Supreme Court held that public places cannot be occupied indefinitely, and public protests and demonstrations must be organised in designated places. Thus, even though the right is inalienable, it is enacted keeping certain contingencies in light.

Even though the Constitution does not specify an agency to control or administer permissions regarding protest, the local law enforcement agencies typically take cognizance. For a protest happening at Jantar Mantar, the Delhi police is empowered to issue notification for the designation of the protest site, as well as granting permissions to the protestors willing to use the site. The protest can be carried out following permission from the respective authorities, depending on the locality in which it happens.  

Analysis of the Law

Even though specific provisions are laid out, there are several places where loopholes can be found. Each country comprises its own governance framework distinctive to their nation, and governs freedom of association differently. Various countries have a designated protest site that requires permission of use from the authorities, whereas other laws are silent on this issue.

For instance, the French Law of Internal Security Code specifies the requirement of a notification before a large scale gathering, except when it pertains to the subject of local custom. A sharp distinction has been made between “Notification” and “Permission”, indicating that the individuals don’t require government’s permission to assemble. However, the law mandates information of the assembly to the concerned authorities so as to maintain public order[vi]. Similar to the French law, the Constitution of Brazil also clarifies that the individuals’ right to protest does not require prior authorization. Alongside this, It doesn’t mention a need for a protest site, and allows for the individuals to gather at their place of choice[vii]. By balancing individual autonomy with state administration, both the domestic laws of the country ensure that public order is maintained without violating any one’s rights in the process.

Through the introduction of authorization to protest, the position of laws concerning freedom of speech and expression remains at a vulnerable spot. By allowing the local authorities to administer permissions and take discretionary measures, they possess an upper hand at regulating the individual’s right. The Constitution recognises an individual’s right to peaceful assembly, but the system simultaneously creates friction by having to obtain permit to use the site. A protest can happen regardless of the government’s disapproval; creating a provision as such prioritizes the state’s interest over its individuals.

Not only is the provision inconsistent with the laws of the land, but is also unjust with the principles of Natural Justice. The principle of “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua”, which literally translates to “No One should be a judge in their own cause” is an essential rule in ensuring impartiality and fairness while delivering a judgement. No person should be made a party while making a decision that concerns themselves[viii]. This is done to ensure that decision makers remain free from bias that may affect the case while adjudicating disputes.

By allowing the executive to grant permissions, the provision intervenes with this rule. The decision to grant or not grant the permission directly affects the local authorities who are administering the very provision. In such scenarios, the decision may get manipulated and favour one side rather than assessing them from a balanced perspective. By doing so, the executive becomes a judge in its own cause i.e, Nemo Judex in Causa Sua.

The doctrine of proportionality further supports this, and asserts that any restriction on individual freedom must be consistent with the underlying ground that warrant such action. The restrictions should be reasonable, and the implementation of limitations on individual autonomy needs to be carried out in a manner that imposes the least possible infringement upon personal freedoms, thereby aligning with the principles of rationality[ix].

In a democratic country, individuals are free to gather peacefully at the place of their choice. Even though protest sites are designated, the individual possesses freedom to gather at the place of their choice. Moreover, it is also the moral responsibility of the group to ensure that the roads remain unblocked and can be used by locals for their own purposes. In such scenarios, both the state and the individual’s measures should be proportionate to the goals they’re trying to achieve, and need not be excessive.

Conclusion

The governance of protest sites remains to be a complex issue that seeks to protect government authority while preserving individual autonomy. The de-notification of Jantar Mantar consequently raise many questions extending beyond a singular piece of land. While the union may authorize the respective people to make decisions, it should be ensured that the message of the protesters is being received by the people it is directed towards. The Constitution does not mandate the presence of a site to conduct an assembly, nor does it empower the government to regulate it. Therefore, this power of regulation should not be treated in a manner that does not create a meaningful use for the public. Actions should be taken accordingly, in a manner that encourages fruitful dissent instead of driving it to irrelevancy.

[i] The Hindu, http://thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/jantar-mantar-no-longer-legal-protest-site-three-alternative-sites-designated-by-delhi-police/article71574232.ece, (last visited 18^th October, 2026)

[ii] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl.1

[iii] Himmatlal Shah vs, Commissioner of Police, AIR 1973 SC 87

[iv] Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 3476

[v] Amit Sahni vs. Commissioner of Police, AIR 2020 SC 4704

[vi] Code de la sécurité intérieure (CSI) (Code of Internal Security), art. L211-1 (Fr.)

[vii] Constituição Federal (C.F)(Constitution), art. 16. (Braz.).

[viii] Surbhi Jindal and Anunay Pandey, Audi Alteram Partem and Nemo Judex in Causa Sua: The two Pillars of Natural Justice, Manupatra, (Oct 23, 2026, 6:55 PM), https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Audi-Alteram-Partem-and-Nemo-Judex-In-Causa-Sua-The-Two-Pillars-of-Natural-Justice

[ix] Vansh singh, Critical Analysis of Doctrine of Proportionality: A Case Study of Demonetisation, 4.1, JCLJ, 558, 559-560 (2023)