|
The Supreme Court, while setting aside a blanket ban on protests at Jantar Mantar in a 2018 ruling, had held that the right to peaceful protest could not be completely extinguished and that the competing rights of protesters and residents had to be balanced through regulation. The Court had accordingly directed authorities to permit limited and regulated use of the area.
With the Delhi Police now de-notifying Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and shifting demonstrations to three other venues, the question is whether the decision is legally sustainable in light of the Supreme Courts ruling. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was dealing with a 2017 order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which had directed authorities to immediately stop dharnas, protests, agitations, public speeches and other such activities at Jantar Mantar Road and shift protesters to an alternative site. The Supreme Court held that the right to hold peaceful protests and demonstrations is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution. The Court also recognised the serious discomfort and harassment caused to residents by the manner in which demonstrations were being held at Jantar Mantar. But it held that the competing rights had to be balanced rather than one right being completely extinguished. Total extinction is not balancing. Balancing would mean curtailing one right of one class to some extent so that the right of the other class is also protected, the Court said. The Court specifically attributed the problems at Jantar Mantar to inadequate regulation by the authorities. We feel that the pathetic conditions which were caused as a result of the processions, demonstrations and agitations etc. at the Jantar Mantar were primarily because of the reason that authorities did not take necessary measures to regulate the same, the Court said. It then directed the Delhi Police Commissioner, in consultation with other concerned agencies, to devise a mechanism for the limited use of Jantar Mantar. Since Jantar Mantar was the area chosen by the authorities and has been in use for quite some time, balancing can be done by permitting a limited part of this area for holding peaceful public meetings, processions etc., at least to small groups, the Court said. The Court directed that demonstrations be regulated in a manner that did not cause disturbance or inconvenience to residents of Jantar Mantar Road or the offices situated there. It also said authorities could require prior permission for demonstrations and lay down parameters to decide whether permission should be granted. The Supreme Court subsequently reiterated this position in a 2019 judgment, describing the 2018 ruling as one concerning the regulation of demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and the need to balance the interests of residents with those of protesters. Jantar Mantar has now been de-notified as a designated venue for organising protests and demonstrations in Delhi, according to the Delhi Police notice. The Delhi Police has designated three new venues for protests Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi. The Ministry of Home Affairs had constituted a committee to examine alternative venues where citizens could exercise their right to organise protests and demonstrations. Based on the committees recommendations, Jantar Mantar has been de-notified as a protest venue. Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar said a detailed and revised Standard Operating Procedure for organising protests and demonstrations at the three designated venues would be issued separately. The notice partially modifies Standing Order No. L&O/48/22 dated April 28, 2022. The legal question that now stands is whether de-notifying Jantar Mantar altogether and shifting protests to alternative venues amounts to permissible regulation of the right to protest, or whether it goes beyond the regulatory framework contemplated by the Supreme Court when it directed authorities to allow limited and regulated use of Jantar Mantar. The 2018 judgment does not say that Jantar Mantar must remain a permanent protest site. But it also did not endorse a blanket prohibition. Its operative approach was to balance the competing rights through regulation and limited use of the area. (ANI)
|
