The Delhi High Court has agreed to hear a plea by the Indian Youth Congress challenging Delhi Police’s refusal to allow a proposed protest at Jantar Mantar, bringing the administration of the capital’s designated protest space before the court.
The petition, filed by Indian Youth Congress national president Uday Bhanu Chib, is expected to be taken up on Friday after it was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench comprising acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma. The court told the petitioner’s counsel that if the matter was not taken up on Friday, it could be mentioned again.
The organisation had approached the high court on October 3, challenging a Delhi Police communication dated October 1 that denied permission for the demonstration. The proposed protest concerns alleged irregularities in the SIR exercise and is directed against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, according to the petition.
The Indian Youth Congress had applied to Delhi Police on September 25 seeking permission to hold a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar between October 1 and October 25. The application proposed a gathering of between 100 and 150 people. The organisation said it had agreed to comply with lawful conditions relating to security, traffic management, discipline and public order.
The petition invokes the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms under Article 19(1)(b). It argues that the proposed demonstration was intended to raise concerns about transparency, accountability and the functioning of constitutional institutions.
The petition does not dispute that the state can regulate assemblies to protect public order, manage traffic, ensure public safety and safeguard the rights of residents and other members of the public. Its challenge is directed at the manner and extent of that regulation. The organisation argues that the authority to regulate a fundamental right cannot become an unrestricted power to prohibit its exercise.
The plea further contends that decisions on public demonstrations must involve reasonable regulation, individualised assessment and proportionality rather than a mechanical refusal. It describes the dispute as extending beyond the denial of one permission request to the constitutional limits on administrative discretion when authorities regulate the exercise of fundamental freedoms.
The petition seeks the quashing of the October 1 police communication and directions for fresh and lawful consideration of the request. The court’s hearing will determine the next procedural step in the challenge; the supplied report does not record any order granting permission for the proposed demonstration or setting aside the police decision.
