Jantar Mantar is a road, not a site, says Delhi Police chief

The DelhiPolice Commissioner submitted in the Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 3, 2026) that Jantar Mantar is not a “site” but a “public road”. He said no one can insist on a fundamental right to protest at a particular place and the State can shift venues of protest to other locations.

Also read | Jantar Mantar denotified as protest site based on SC order: police to High Court

The Delhi Police was responding to a petition filed by Swaty Singh, represented by senior advocate Mukta Gupta and advocate Akanksha Mehra, challenging the recent de-notification of Jantar Mantar, which was at the heart of the NEET-UG paper leak and the anti-Chief Election Commissioner protests in the national capital.

Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, in an affidavit, said the very identification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site was “contrary to public interest since the inception”.

“The location is a stretch of public road meant for the use and free movement of the public, and could not appropriately have been identified and designated as a permanent protest site… Being a public road, it ought not to have been declared as a designated protest site since it continues to be used [though with difficulty] as a public road,” Mr. Kumar argued.

He said the stretch of “road” witnesses nearly 1,300 protests every year. Emergency services on that stretch of road were a nightmare, and general security in the area was compromised. The July 20 NEET-UG protests showed a turnout that far exceeded capacity. This was not a solitary instance and created a constant fear of a stampede.

The police chief detailed that from August 1 to August 17 this year, the stretch of Jantar Mantar had accounted for 250 distress calls, 109 FIRs relating to theft, 10 FIRs on motor vehicle thefts, more than 250 property loss claims, and 23 FIRs relating to public order violations, rioting, and defacement. The area around Jantar Mantar hosts 78 foreign embassies/missions, 99 Central government offices, a daily footfall of 1.46 lakh persons, and 7,017 private residences.

The right to dissent and peaceful protest should be balanced against the rights of other citizens. Protests cannot be a cause of disturbance to non-protesting citizens, residents, or offices situated in the vicinity of the designated venue, he said.

The proximity of the new Parliament premises has further enhanced the significance of regulating activities in the area, Mr. Kumar submitted.

“The right to protest at a particular place cannot, by itself, be regarded as a fundamental right. The right to protest does not confer an absolute right to a particular person,” the Police Commissioner said.

He highlighted that the right to publicly demonstrate dissent through protests must not stop others from carrying on their livelihood and business or arrest their right to move freely within the capital city of India.