Jantar Mantar protest denial puts the right to assemble in focus
Permission had not been granted as of 8 October for a planned 10 October 2026 protest at Jantar Mantar. Organisers sought the Chief Election Commissioner’s resignation over alleged voter deletions. The dispute highlights peaceful assembly, reasonable restrictions and remedies against administrative decisions.
Event date:

The brief in 5 cards
-
Context1 / 5
- As of 8 October 2026, Delhi Police said permission had not been granted for a protest at Jantar Mantar planned for 10 October by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and allied student groups.
- The organisers sought Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. They alleged large-scale voter deletions during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. These are the organisers’ allegations.
- The application was reported to have been made on 7 October, against an ordinary notice requirement of about 10 days. Short notice and safety concerns were reported as reasons for refusal.
- A senior police officer said more than 20,000 police and paramilitary personnel had been deployed across Delhi. Prohibitory orders were reported to be in force in the area.
This card sets out documented positions. It does not adjudicate between them.
-
Note2 / 5
The constitutional and legal framework
The table sets out the key provisions.
Provision What it does Article 19(1)(a) Citizens’ freedom of speech and expression, including criticism of the government Article 19(1)(b) Citizens’ right to assemble peaceably and without arms Article 19(3) Allows reasonable restrictions on assembly for sovereignty and integrity of India, and public order Article 226 High Courts can review administrative decisions and enforce fundamental rights Section 163, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 Magistrate can issue urgent orders to prevent danger or disturbance (corresponds to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)) Section 223, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 Penalises knowing disobedience of a duly promulgated lawful order when statutory harm or risk conditions are met (corresponds to Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)) Think of the right to protest as a road: citizens may use it, but lawful and reasonable traffic rules govern when, where and how.
-
Note3 / 5
What the courts have said
- Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961): Upheld the constitutional validity of the old Section 144. Affected persons could ask the magistrate to modify or cancel an order.
- Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re (2012): Held that the midnight police action against sleeping protesters was excessive. Preventive powers must be used cautiously and with adequate justification.
- Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018): Rejected a complete prohibition at Jantar Mantar and directed a mechanism for limited, regulated use. It also directed guidelines for permission in the Boat Club area, balancing protesters’ rights with those of residents.
-
Note4 / 5
Challenges and remedies
- Arbitrary refusals. Wide police discretion can suppress legitimate dissent, especially when reasons are not recorded.
- Competing interests. Protests can disrupt traffic and residents’ lives, which the 2018 judgment recognised.
- Distant venues. Moving protests far from decision-makers can blunt their purpose.
- Permission refusal. Organisers can ask police to reconsider or propose a different date or venue.
- Prohibitory order. An aggrieved person can ask the competent magistrate to alter or rescind the order under BNSS Section 163. The applicant must receive an early opportunity to be heard; a full or partial rejection requires written reasons. This is distinct from reconsideration of a police permission refusal.
- Judicial review. Organisers can approach the High Court under Article 226 for urgent relief.
-
Way forward5 / 5
- Publish clear criteria for permission and record reasons for every refusal.
- Prefer proportionate regulation, such as crowd limits, timings and traffic diversions, over blanket bans.
- Offer accessible alternative venues where security permits.
- Organisers should apply early, follow safety conditions and keep protests peaceful.
- Distinguish peaceful dissent from real threats of violence, using credible information.
Swipe or use ← → to move between cards.
Sources
- ThePrint (PTI) · 8 October 2026
- The Indian Express · Article on Jantar Mantar protest permission and assembly rights; title and edition date unavailable, p. 13 · 11 October 2026
- Supreme Court of India · 23 July 2018
- Legislative Department, Government of India · Constitution of India: Articles 19 and 226; consultation date used for undated edition · 11 October 2026
- Ministry of Home Affairs, India · Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 163 · 25 December 2023
- India Code, Government of India · Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 223 · 25 December 2023
- Delhi Police · Jantar Mantar permission refusal, stated reasons and applicable prohibitory order; official document not obtained · 8 October 2026
Syllabus
| Paper | Subject | Sub-topic |
|---|---|---|
| Prelims | Polity | Articles 19 and 226; BNSS Section 163; Supreme Court judgments |
| GS2 | Polity | Fundamental rights; judiciary; police and public order |
Topics
Practice questions
With reference to the right to protest in India, consider the following statements: 1. Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. 2. Restrictions on this right can be imposed in the interest of public order under Article 19(3). 3. The right to protest is absolute and cannot be restricted. Which of the statements given above are correct?
Show answer
Answer: A. Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is wrong because the right is subject to reasonable restrictions.
Difficulty: easy · statement
Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to which provision of the old Code of Criminal Procedure?
Show answer
Answer: B. Section 163 of the BNSS replaces Section 144 of the CrPC on urgent prohibitory orders. Section 188 was an IPC offence, now Section 223 of the BNS.
Difficulty: medium · statement
In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court:
Show answer
Answer: B. The Court directed a mechanism for limited use of Jantar Mantar and permission guidelines for the Boat Club area, balancing peaceful assembly with residents’ rights. It did not dispense with permission requirements.
Difficulty: medium · statement
Mains practice
Answer-writing practice on this article. Attempt it first, then open the hints.
“The right to protest is essential to democracy, but it is not absolute.” Discuss with reference to recent permission denials and Supreme Court judgments.
Show hints
- Explain the freedoms under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) and the reasonable restrictions permitted by Article 19(3).
- Discuss the balance between protesters’ and residents’ rights in the 2018 judgment and proportionality in the 2012 Ramlila Maidan case.
- Explain the preventive role of BNSS Section 163 and its safeguards for review of orders.
- Assess clear permission criteria, recorded reasons and proportionate regulation instead of blanket bans.
- Distinguish police reconsideration, review of prohibitory orders and High Court remedies under Article 226.