The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to reconsider Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and identify another location with facilities for peaceful demonstrators, a move that has triggered opposition from Cockroach Janata Party co-convener Saurav Das ahead of the party’s planned demonstration in Delhi.
During a hearing on Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant that the competent authorities would consider identifying a location other than Jantar Mantar for peaceful protests. The court subsequently recorded that all parties agreed it was time to identify and designate another place equipped with facilities for peaceful protesters.
The court asked the competent authorities to consider the suggestion and take an appropriate decision. The direction, as reported by Live Hindustan, does not itself announce an immediate closure of Jantar Mantar or name a replacement site. It places the next decision with the relevant authorities.
Das objected to the possibility of moving demonstrations away from Jantar Mantar in a post shared on X. He said the party did not accept the proposal and would not allow it at any cost. In the post, Das referred to earlier restrictions on public demonstrations, writing that India Gate had first been taken away from protesters and that restrictions had later been imposed at Jantar Mantar with the Supreme Court’s approval.
He further alleged that the authorities now wanted to take Jantar Mantar away from protesters as well, again citing the Supreme Court’s intervention. Das ended the post by asking the Centre to stay away from what he described as “our Jantar Mantar”.
The immediate dispute comes before the party’s planned sit-in protest at Jantar Mantar on Saturday. The court-related development therefore has a direct operational significance for the demonstration, although the supplied report does not state that the planned protest has been cancelled or shifted.
Jantar Mantar has long functioned as a recognised site for public demonstrations in central Delhi, where the location of protests is balanced against security, traffic management and the functioning of the surrounding administrative district. The Supreme Court’s observation brings that balance back before the Centre and the competent authorities, which must now consider whether another site can provide adequate facilities while serving as a practical venue for peaceful assembly.
The report does not identify the alternative location under consideration, specify a timeline for the decision or detail the facilities that any replacement site would provide. It also does not indicate whether new restrictions at Jantar Mantar have been formally notified. The next step is for the competent authorities to examine the court’s suggestion and decide whether another designated protest venue should be established.
