Delhi Police has denotified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue and identified three alternative sites for demonstrations. Jantar Mantar had served as a focal point for public agitations for decades, making this a significant restriction on the exercise of the right to assemble and protest. The move revives constitutional questions under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) about the extent to which the state may regulate or relocate, rather than prohibit, the exercise of fundamental assembly rights.

The right to protest in India flows primarily from two fundamental rights: Article 19(1)(a) — freedom of speech and expression — and Article 19(1)(b) — right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Both rights are not absolute. The state may impose 'reasonable restrictions' under Articles 19(2) and 19(3) respectively on grounds including public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to protest in public spaces is a fundamental right, but its exercise must be balanced against the rights of others and public order. In Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012), the Court affirmed that citizens have a right to peaceful assembly and the state cannot suppress dissent arbitrarily. In Re: Ramlila Maidan (2012) and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court recognised that the state has a duty to facilitate, not merely tolerate, peaceful protests.

The critical constitutional test is whether a restriction is 'reasonable' — the Court applies a proportionality standard: the restriction must be necessary, proportionate to the harm sought to be prevented, and must not be a disguised prohibition. Merely relocating protests to a less visible venue, critics argue, can be an indirect prohibition if the alternative venues are inaccessible or ineffective.

Denotification of Jantar Mantar thus raises the question: is relocation a 'reasonable restriction' or a disguised prohibition? This is precisely the doctrinal tension CLAT PG examiners exploit.