New Delhi, Oct 15 The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre and Delhi Police’s response on a petition challenging an October 11 order de-notifying Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and notifying three alternative venues for demonstrations.
Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar's standing order dated October 11 de-notified Jantar Mantar and designated the Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and the CBD Ground in east Delhi as the new venues for protests and demonstrations.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi orally observed that it would examine whether the authorities had applied their mind to the use and efficacy of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.
During the hearing of the plea filed by advocate Swaty Singh, senior lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan sought restoration of the notification designating Jantar Mantar as a protest site.
He pointed out that the de-notification had been stated to be in terms of an earlier Supreme Court order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, clarified that the earlier Supreme Court decision was not the basis for the latest denotification.
The top law officer said that a committee, which was constituted to examine the issue, has submitted its report recording the reasons.
Senior advocate Mukta Gupta said a designated protest site must be one where demonstrators can effectively make their voices heard.
Justice Bagchi observed that the issue also needed to be considered in the context of technological developments.
Referring to the argument that Jantar Mantar should not be relocated because of its proximity to government establishments, the judge indicated that the court would call upon the State to respond to the concerns raised.
The top court also directed Delhi Police to submit the prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the BNSS, formerly Section 144 of the CrPC, which restricted public gatherings and demonstrations in Delhi on various dates over the past fortnight.
It also instructed all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV camera footage and other digital evidence related to the protests.
The plea said that shifting protests to distant and outlying areas could render the fundamental rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression ineffective.
It said the right to protest is not confined to assembling at a designated physical location but also encompasses the ability to communicate grievances, express dissent and draw the attention of public authorities and society to issues requiring redressal.
“The location of a protest is, therefore, not an inconsequential administrative consideration,” the plea said, adding that proximity to the institutions concerned, public accessibility and visibility to the intended audience can directly influence the effectiveness of a demonstration.
The plea also claimed that the impugned standing order was arbitrary and procedurally deficient.
“A notification which withdraws an existing venue can't be regarded as preserving the right to protest merely because alternative locations have been identified, particularly when the detailed arrangements governing access to those locations are left to a subsequent standard operating procedure,” the plea said.
