The decision to de-notify Jantar Mantar as a protest venue is not simply a change of location for demonstrations in Delhi. It marks another major shift in how the capital manages the difficult overlap between public dissent, residential peace, security and access to the seat of government. The Delhi Police has named Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground as new sites after heightened security arrangements and calls for protests in the capital.
The immediate trigger was a letter from the Cockroach Janata Party seeking permission and a fixed date for a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar. The party gave the police 24 hours to respond. But the significance of the decision lies beyond that particular mobilisation. Jantar Mantar Road has been Delhi’s designated protest corridor since 1993, placing demonstrations close to Parliament, government offices and Connaught Place. Its removal from the approved list therefore changes the geography of political expression in central Delhi.
The site carries an unusual dual identity. Jantar Mantar was built in 1731 by Jaipur ruler Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II, during the reign of Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah. It was one of five observatories established by Jai Singh to study celestial bodies and improve astronomical calculations. Its masonry instruments, including the Samrat Yantra, Jai Prakash, Ram Yantra and Misra Yantra, were designed to measure time, track the sun and planets, and calculate astronomical positions.
Over time, however, the road beside the observatory acquired a second public meaning. Its proximity to the country’s political and administrative centre made it a practical place for people seeking official attention. Trade unions, farmers, students, pensioners, ex-servicemen, displaced communities, activists and families seeking justice used the site to make their demands visible. The observatory remained associated with the study of the heavens, while the adjoining road became a place where citizens tried to influence events on the ground.
That arrangement was itself the result of an earlier relocation. For decades after Independence, some of Delhi’s largest demonstrations were held on the Boat Club lawns near India Gate. Other groups camped behind the Red Fort for extended periods in the hope of meeting ministers and drawing attention to their demands. Historian Sohail Hashmi, cited in the report, described a long tradition of public protest in Delhi, including large demonstrations between Boat Club and India Gate during the 1960s.
The Boat Club era began to close after the farmers’ agitation led by Mahendra Singh Tikait in the late 1980s. Authorities cited security and public-order concerns while gradually restricting protests at the lawns. By 1993, Jantar Mantar Road had become the designated venue for dharnas and demonstrations in central Delhi. The change did not eliminate conflict over public space; it transferred that conflict to a narrower urban setting.
The next major challenge came from residents of Jantar Mantar Road. In 2017, they approached the National Green Tribunal, arguing that their neighbourhood had effectively become a permanent protest site. Their complaints included demonstrations lasting weeks or months, tents, temporary structures, loudspeakers, garbage and disruption to everyday life. In October that year, the tribunal ordered that protests at Jantar Mantar be stopped and moved to Ramlila Maidan.
The tribunal’s order exposed the central administrative problem: a protest site is not only a political facility but also a piece of a functioning neighbourhood. Its use affects traffic, sanitation, noise levels, policing and the rights of residents. At the same time, moving demonstrations away from the political centre can make them harder to access, particularly for citizens with limited resources, and can reduce their visibility to ministers, officials and the media.
The dispute reached the Supreme Court, with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, farmers’ organisations, the Indian Ex-Servicemen Movement and others challenging the order. They argued that a blanket prohibition would violate the fundamental right to peaceful assembly. They also contended that shifting protests farther from Parliament and the seat of government would weaken their democratic effect.
On July 23, 2018, the Supreme Court sought to balance these competing claims. It recognised residents’ rights to peace and a clean environment alongside the right to protest peacefully. Instead of endorsing an outright ban, it directed authorities to regulate demonstrations through guidelines. The framework included prior police permission, limits on crowd size and duration, sanitation requirements, noise controls, traffic management and responsibilities for organisers.
The court’s framework divided the burden spatially. Jantar Mantar Road was designated for protests of up to 1,000 people, while larger gatherings were to be held at Ramlila Maidan. This arrangement treated protest management as an urban-capacity question: the size and duration of a gathering had to be matched with the surrounding area’s ability to absorb its effects. It also preserved the principle that a protest venue should not be selected only for administrative convenience or removed only because it is difficult to manage.
The latest police decision appears to move Delhi into another phase of that unresolved debate. The three newly named sites—Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground—may provide authorities with more space or different security conditions, but the supplied report does not establish how permissions, crowd limits, sanitation systems, public transport access or proximity to decision-makers will operate at each location. Those details will determine whether the change is merely logistical or whether it substantially changes who can reach a protest and how visible that protest can become.
The locations also raise an institutional question about central-city governance. Delhi’s protest map has repeatedly been reshaped after authorities cited security, order or neighbourhood concerns. Boat Club gave way to Jantar Mantar; Jantar Mantar was later subjected to judicially mandated regulation; and the police has now removed it from the designated list while identifying alternative grounds. Each shift has attempted to reconcile the right to assemble with the need to keep public spaces, roads and neighbourhoods functioning.
What the history shows is that there is no permanent protest venue in Delhi. Every designated site reflects a temporary settlement between competing urban claims. Residents seek quiet, cleanliness and uninterrupted movement. Protesters seek visibility, access and the ability to assemble without prohibitive costs. Police and civic authorities must manage security, traffic, sanitation and public order. The location of a demonstration determines how these claims are distributed across the city.
Jantar Mantar’s importance therefore cannot be measured only by the number of gatherings it can accommodate. Its central location made it a symbol of democratic dissent, as Hashmi told PTI, particularly for smaller groups and individuals raising different issues. The report also notes that the current mobilisation stands out because of its scale and duration, with such a sustained gathering described as unusual in recent decades. That pressure appears to have contributed to the latest administrative turn, although the supplied material does not establish the full decision-making record.
The immediate question is whether the new arrangement will preserve the balance identified by the Supreme Court in 2018. A functioning system would need to protect residents from prolonged disruption while ensuring that peaceful assemblies remain accessible, visible and subject to transparent rules. The official notice naming the three new sites establishes a change in venue, but not yet the complete operating framework behind it.
Delhi’s protest map has always been a map of the city’s political priorities and administrative anxieties. The removal of Jantar Mantar as a designated venue closes one chapter that began in 1993, but it does not resolve the underlying question: how can a capital make room for dissent without pushing it so far from power that its democratic purpose is weakened? The next permissions, crowd conditions and operating rules at Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground will show how authorities answer that question.
