The Delhi High Court on Monday gave the Delhi Police until October 13 to respond to a petition filed by the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) challenging the refusal of permission to hold a protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at Jantar Mantar. Justice Amit Mahajan listed the matter for the following day after Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the police, sought additional time to take instructions.

Senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and Vivek Tankha, representing the IYC, pressed for an immediate hearing, noting that the plea had been filed four days earlier and that the police’s counsel had ample time to seek instructions. The court, however, accommodated the police’s request, scheduling the next hearing for Tuesday.

Court Grants Extension for Police Response

The IYC, through its national president Uday Bhanu Chib, approached the High Court after the Delhi Police on October 1 rejected the organization’s September 25 application for a peaceful demonstration involving approximately 100 to 150 persons. The proposed protest was aimed at demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The petition contends that while the police are empowered to regulate public gatherings, this power cannot be converted into an absolute prohibition without an individualized and proportionate assessment of the specific event. The IYC had undertaken to comply with all lawful conditions concerning security, traffic management, discipline, and public order, yet the police communicated their refusal only on the date proposed for the protest, October 1.

IYC Challenges ‘Mechanical’ Denial of Permissions

The plea argues that the impugned communication fails to disclose any individualized assessment as to how a gathering of 100–150 persons, subject to the undertakings furnished, would obstruct traffic, endanger safety, or disturb public tranquillity. It further questions why reasonable conditions—such as restricting duration to one day, limiting participation, prohibiting processions, regulating sound systems, maintaining emergency access, and deploying volunteers—would not adequately address the concerns raised by the respondents.

The IYC invokes Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to peaceful assembly. The petition also relies on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence that the right to peaceful assembly is fundamental and that any regulatory measure must be proportionate to the specific circumstances of the event.

Constitutional Rights at Fore

The petition alleges that the police have mechanically applied existing protest guidelines without considering the nature and scale of the proposed demonstration. It asserts that the refusal to grant permission infringes upon the fundamental rights of the IYC and its members to express dissent and assemble peacefully.

The High Court has not yet adjudicated the merits of the challenge. The principal issue before the court is whether the police’s blanket refusal, without individualized reasoning, violates constitutional safeguards. The hearing on October 13 is expected to see the Delhi Police present their response, likely outlining the grounds for denial.

The case underscores the ongoing tension between the state’s regulatory powers and the constitutional guarantee of peaceful assembly. The IYC has emphasized its willingness to abide by any reasonable conditions, framing the dispute as one concerning the procedural fairness of permission decisions rather than the right to protest itself.

Meanwhile, other political groups have also sought to register their demands at Jantar Mantar, including the Cockroach Janta Party, which issued a 24-hour ultimatum to the police for a response to its own protest request. However, the court’s primary focus remains on the IYC’s constitutional challenge.

The next hearing will determine whether the court grants interim relief to the IYC or directs further proceedings. The outcome could have broader implications for how police handle applications for peaceful assemblies in public spaces, particularly when the proposed gathering is small and subject to conditions.

For now, the Delhi Police has until Tuesday to file its response, and the court will then decide the next course of action. The IYC continues to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, citing alleged irregularities in the electoral rolls revision process. The legal battle over the right to protest at Jantar Mantar is set to continue, with the court’s upcoming decision likely to clarify the boundaries of permissible regulation under the Constitution.