The Delhi Police has officially submitted a detailed affidavit to the Supreme Court of India, standing by its recent administrative decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues in the capital. The Commissioner of Police, Anurag Kumar, informed the Apex Court that the site, which has served as a central hub for dissent for decades, is in reality a public road that was never intended for long-term assembly. This filing comes in direct response to a petition submitted by advocate Swaty Singh, which challenges the de-notification as an infringement on the fundamental rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

The police contend that the decision to shift protest sites was not a knee-jerk reaction to recent political gatherings, but rather the result of a long-standing assessment conducted by a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs. According to the Commissioner’s submission, the committee concluded that the logistical challenges posed by the Jantar Mantar stretch—including traffic congestion, risks to public safety, and the obstruction of emergency services—far outweighed the benefits of maintaining the location as a protest site.

Infrastructure and Safety Concerns The affidavit highlights a stark disparity between the capacity of the area and the scale of modern protests. The Delhi Police estimates that the stretch can accommodate roughly 1,500 people, a limit frequently exceeded by recent large-scale demonstrations. The Commissioner noted that the constant influx of protesters creates a "constant fear of a stampede" and complicates daily operations for over 7,000 nearby private residences and dozens of government offices.

Between August 1 and August 27, 2026 , the police recorded a significant volume of incidents in the immediate vicinity of the former site, including 109 theft FIRs, 10 motor vehicle thefts, and over 250 distress calls. Furthermore, the presence of foreign embassies and missions, along with the high footfall generated by proximity to key administrative buildings, has created a complex security environment. "Access of emergency services like fire brigades, ambulances etc. invariably get constrained not only for the venue, but also for the neighbourhood, and thus, the general security of the area is compromised, resulting in public order issues," the Commissioner’s affidavit states.

The police have redirected protest activities to three designated alternatives: Ramlila Maidan in Central Delhi, the CBD Ground in East Delhi, and the Burari Ground in the northern part of the city. These locations, the police argue, are better equipped to handle large crowds without disrupting the essential movement of traffic or access to critical healthcare facilities, such as the nearby Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.

The Digital Shift in Political Dissent A notable component of the Delhi Police’s argument is the evolving nature of political visibility in the age of social media. While the petitioner argues that physical proximity to the seat of government is vital for the effectiveness of a protest, the police have dismissed this notion as increasingly obsolete. The affidavit asserts that, in the era of digital technology and widespread use of social media, the geographical proximity of a protest site to the seat of the Government has ceased to be relevant and has become redundant.

This perspective challenges the long-standing belief that physical presence within the "power corridor" is the only way for citizens to make their voices heard by the state. The police argue that the fundamental right to protest, while protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, does not confer an absolute right to occupy a specific public thoroughfare. Instead, they maintain that this right must be carefully balanced against the rights of non-protesting citizens, including their right to move freely, access their workplaces, and lead lives without disruption.

Legal Tension and Judicial Review The petitioner, represented by legal counsel, maintains that while the state has the authority to regulate public spaces in the interest of order, such regulations cannot effectively prohibit the exercise of constitutional rights. The petition argues that by pushing protesters to the outskirts of the city, the effectiveness of dissent is diminished, rendering the right to peaceful assembly hollow. The legal community is watching the case closely, as it forces the Supreme Court to weigh the boundaries of administrative discretion against the essential democratic requirement of accessible dissent.

The affidavit further clarifies that the decision-making process was independent of the Court’s previous observations in October 2026. The Ministry of Home Affairs committee had begun its examination of the site’s suitability as early as August 26, with the final report forwarded to the police commissioner in mid-September—well before the Supreme Court issued its notices regarding protest protocols. The police insist that the change is a necessary regulatory update to a framework that had remained static for years while the city's ground realities, including the construction of the new Parliament complex, had undergone significant transformation.

As the matter stands, the Supreme Court has yet to deliver a ruling on the validity of the de-notification. The litigation forms part of a broader discourse on how urban centers can accommodate democratic expression while ensuring the maintenance of public infrastructure. The Court’s eventual decision will likely establish a precedent for how much weight administrative and security concerns carry when they conflict with the visibility requirements of political demonstrations.

The case is currently pending before the Bench, with all parties awaiting the next procedural hearing. The immediate consequence of this ongoing litigation is that while protesters continue to navigate the newly designated areas, the status of Jantar Mantar remains at the center of a debate over the limits of state control in a public space. For now, the three alternative venues remain the only government-sanctioned locations for large-scale gatherings, as the judiciary prepares to deliberate on whether the shift aligns with the constitutional guarantees provided to citizens of the capital.