Examine whether executive standing orders are enough to regulate a fundamental right, or whether legislative backing is needed.

Under Article 19(3), only a "law" can place reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peaceably. Yet the right to protest in Delhi is run largely through police standing orders. In October 2026 Delhi Police changed Standing Order L&O/48/22 to remove Jantar Mantar as a protest venue [1]. This shows both what executive regulation can do and where it falls short.

Why standing orders have a role

• Speed and flexibility: police can respond quickly to crowd size, traffic and security, and a statute cannot foresee every local situation.
• Judicial endorsement: in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court asked the Police Commissioner to frame guidelines that balance protesters' rights with residents' rights [2].
• Operational detail: permission procedures, timings and crowd limits are administrative matters that SOPs handle well.

Why they are not enough on their own

• Legality test: in Kharak Singh (1962), the Supreme Court held that executive instructions are not "law" for curbing liberty. Puttaswamy (2017) makes legality the first step of proportionality.
• Opacity: the MHA committee whose advice led to the 2026 change has not published its reasons. This leaves the restriction untested for proportionality [1].
• Risk of disguised bans: the order removed Jantar Mantar before the SOPs for the new venues were issued. Two of the replacement sites are 13–15 km away [1]. In practice this can become the kind of blanket ban the Court rejected in 2018 [2].
• Timing and trust: the order came during protests over the Chief Election Commissioner's role, which raises fears of chilling dissent [1].
• Global standard: the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 37 asks that any restriction be provided by law. It also prefers notification (telling the police) over authorisation (needing police approval) [3].

Way forward

• A short framework law on public assembly that sets out venue criteria, timelines for decisions, written reasons for refusals and an appeal route.
• Standing orders then work only as delegated detail under that law, and are published and placed before the legislature.

Standing orders are useful tools, but they cannot be the only basis for regulating a fundamental right. Parliament should lay down the legal framework and leave the operational details to the police. This would keep regulation of dissent within the rule of law, as the Constitution's promise of free assembly requires.