Does relocating protests away from the centres of power amount to a reasonable restriction or to a dilution of dissent? Critically examine.

Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably. Under Article 19(3), it can be restricted only for public order or sovereignty. On 12 October 2026, Delhi Police denotified Jantar Mantar. This came days after the Supreme Court urged a "spacious, open" alternative protest site [1]. Relocation is reasonable when it manages crowds, but it dilutes dissent when it removes protest from where it can be seen.

Relocation as a reasonable restriction

• Golden rule (2018): The SC held that protest rights must be balanced with residents' right to live peacefully [1].
• Capacity and safety: The Court and the Union agreed that central Delhi is too cramped. The CJI noted there are no washrooms, medical aid or drinking water there [1].
• Graded sites already existed: The 2018 police order capped Jantar Mantar at 1,000 protesters and sent larger crowds to Ramlila Maidan [2].
• Reviewed choice: The new sites (Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground) were named after a Home Ministry committee review [3].

Relocation as a dilution of dissent

• "Sight and sound" test: UN HRC General Comment No. 37 says an alternative venue must keep protesters within sight and sound of their target audience [4]. Grounds on the edge of the city fail this test for protests aimed at Parliament or the CEC.
• More than the Court asked: The SC sought an alternative site, not closure [1]. In 2018 it lifted the NGT's blanket ban and regulated protest through limits on numbers and distance instead [5].
• Procedural hurdle: Organisers must apply 10 days in advance [6], so protest against fresh events is almost always "unauthorised".
• Executive fiat: A Police Commissioner's standing order, with no legislative debate or published reasons, decides where dissent can happen [3].
• Counter-productive: On 10 October, with access to the capital curbed, protesters spread onto streets across the city [7]. This is the very disruption the golden rule meant to prevent.

Way forward

• Keep a capped central space with distance buffers (the 2018 model) for small sit-ins, and send large rallies to open grounds [2][5].
• Treat facilities as a State duty to facilitate assembly [4].
• Publish the MHA committee's criteria so courts can test proportionality, and shorten the notice period for small gatherings.

Moving large rallies to open grounds is a reasonable restriction, but closing every central venue dilutes dissent. A tiered, transparent model would respect both the golden rule and Article 19(1)(b). It would keep dissent visible as the safety valve of constitutional democracy.