Indian Youth Congress files Delhi High Court petition against de‑notification of Jantar Mantar as protest site

What the police ordered

Delhi Police issued a standing order on October 11, 2026 that removed Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest sites after more than three decades of use. The order cited a Supreme Court directive dated October 9 that urged the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to identify “larger, better‑equipped” venues for peaceful assemblies. In response, three new sites were notified:

The police said a detailed standard operating procedure for the new venues would be issued separately.

IYC’s legal challenge

The Indian Youth Congress, through its president Uday Bhanu Chib, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court on October 14, 2026. The petition contests the police commissioner Anurag Kumar’s standing order and asks the court to reconsider the removal of Jantar Mantar, arguing that the new locations are far from the capital’s administrative and symbolic centres, potentially diluting the effectiveness of public dissent.

Advocate Roopesh Singh Bhadauria represented the IYC, while the police’s counsel argued that the petition was moot because alternative venues had already been designated. The court, however, issued notice to the authorities, signalling that the matter will be examined on its merits.

Parallel Supreme Court filing

A separate petition has also been lodged in the Supreme Court by advocates Lakshay Saini and Tushar Gupta, with senior advocates Mukta Gupta and Nandita Rao slated to argue. The plea contends that de‑notifying Jantar Mantar infringes Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, and it invokes the 2018 Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan judgment that barred a blanket ban on protests at historic sites.

Government’s rationale

Both the police and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs emphasize that the shift is intended to safeguard public safety, ensure unimpeded emergency services, and provide demonstrators with basic amenities. The move aligns with the Supreme Court’s observation that “a larger, better‑equipped space” is needed for peaceful assemblies in a densely populated capital.

What’s at stake

If the courts uphold the de‑notification, protestors will need to travel up to 18 km to reach the nearest venue, a factor the IYC argues could weaken the visibility and impact of dissent. Conversely, a ruling in favour of the authorities would reinforce the government’s stance that infrastructure and safety considerations can shape the exercise of constitutional rights.

The matter is expected to be listed for hearing in the coming weeks, and both courts will have to balance the right to peaceful protest with the state’s duty to maintain order and public welfare.