Do designated protest zones strengthen or weaken democratic accountability? Illustrate with Indian examples.

Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. Article 19(3) allows reasonable restrictions on it in the interest of public order. Designated protest zones are how the State reconciles the two. Whether they strengthen or weaken accountability depends on their design. A visible, well-regulated zone carries dissent to those in power, while a remote or shrinking one mutes it.

How designated zones strengthen accountability

• Predictable space for dissent: Jantar Mantar lies close to Parliament and the Central ministries and hosts about 1,300 protests a year [1]. Students, farmers and workers reach decision-makers directly.
• Judicial legitimacy: In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court refused a total halt on protests at Jantar Mantar. It ordered regulated use under police guidelines [2].
• Balancing others' rights: Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, 2020) held that public roads cannot be occupied indefinitely. Designated sites let protest coexist with the rights of commuters and traders.
• Security: Zones make crowd management possible in an area with 78 foreign missions and 99 Central offices [1].

How they can weaken accountability

• Dissent moved out of sight: Jantar Mantar was de-notified in 2026. The Delhi Police defended this by arguing that no fundamental right exists to protest at a particular place [1]. This risks cutting protesters off from the audience they want to reach.
• Blanket rather than proportionate limits: The police cited overcrowding at the 20 July NEET-UG protests and 23 public-order FIRs in 17 days [1]. These justify crowd control, not closure. UN General Comment No. 37 presumes blanket restrictions to be disproportionate [3].
• Executive discretion: Delhi Police report to the Union Home Ministry, which is often the very authority being protested against.
• Treating disruption as violence: General Comment No. 37 says that disrupting traffic is not violence [3]. Treating it as violence discourages dissent.

Way forward

• Capacity-based permits: cap numbers and move only very large rallies to bigger grounds.
• Substitute venues must stay within "sight and sound" of the target audience [3].
• Proportionality test (Puttaswamy, 2017): restrict only after publishing baseline crime data.

Designated zones are neither democratic nor repressive in themselves. Their value lies in visibility, access and proportionate regulation. The 2018 judgment saw them as a way to enable protest, not contain it. Used that way, they keep protest safe and heard, and dissent remains the safety valve of a constitutional democracy.