Examine the tension between the right to assemble under Article 19(1)(b) and the rights of ordinary citizens to unhindered access to public spaces. Illustrate with the Jantar Mantar case.

Q. Examine the tension between the right to assemble under Article 19(1)(b) and the rights of ordinary citizens to unhindered access to public spaces. Illustrate with the Jantar Mantar case. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, but Article 19(3) permits reasonable restrictions for public order [1]. The Supreme Court's August 2026 notice on a plea against Jantar Mantar as a protest venue revives this unresolved balance.

The protester's claim - Peaceful protest is a derived right flowing from Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), and is the everyday instrument of democratic accountability [1]. - In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court (Sikri and Bhushan JJ) held there can be no absolute ban on demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club, and directed the Centre and Delhi Police Commissioner to frame permission guidelines within two months [2]. - Repeated prohibitory orders around the Parliament Street–Central Vista area cannot harden into a permanent prohibition [2].

The ordinary citizen's competing claim - Residents' right to live peacefully, commuters' mobility and access to essential services form the "golden rule" of balancing applied in 2018 [2]. - In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020, Shaheen Bagh), the Court held public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely; protest belongs in designated spaces [3]. - An environmental dimension exists: the NGT had banned Jantar Mantar protests in October 2017 on air and noise pollution grounds [4].

Jantar Mantar as illustration - Venue policy has oscillated — Boat Club barred in 1993, NGT ban in 2017, blanket ban lifted in 2018 [2][4]. - The 2026 PIL seeks an alternative venue, not a ban, citing proximity to Parliament and diplomatic zones and digitally mobilised crowds lacking verified organisers; the Court issued notice to the Centre [5].

The tension is best resolved not by prohibition but by proportionality — regulating time, place and manner through the guidelines still awaited since 2018, and equipping a designated protest ground with transport, sanitation and grievance-receipt machinery. Dissent thus stays constitutionally protected while the ordinary citizen's freedom of movement remains equally secure.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — Article 19(1)(b) right to assemble peaceably and without arms; Article 19(3) reasonable restrictions 2. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), Supreme Court of India — no absolute ban on protests at Jantar Mantar/Boat Club; balancing with residents' right; two-month guideline direction 3. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), Supreme Court of India — indefinite occupation of public ways impermissible; protest in designated spaces 4. National Green Tribunal — Judgements/Orders — October 2017 order restricting Jantar Mantar protests on air and noise pollution grounds 5. "Consider plea against Jantar Mantar use: SC", The Hindu, 4 August 2026 — 2026 PIL seeking an alternative protest venue; notice issued to the Centre