'The right to protest cannot be exercised at the cost of the rights of others.' Critically examine this observation in light of recent judicial pronouncements on designated protest venues.

Article 19(1)(b) guarantees peaceful assembly, but subject to reasonable restrictions for public order under Article 19(3) [4]. The Supreme Court's recent notice on a plea to end Jantar Mantar's role as Delhi's ordinary protest venue [1] makes the observation timely — it is largely sound, yet dangerous if read as a licence to push dissent out of sight.

Where the observation holds

• In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), arising from the Shaheen Bagh road blockade, the Court held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely and that protest belongs in designated sites [3].
• In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court upheld regulation of the time, place and manner of demonstrations and directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to frame guidelines for Jantar Mantar, balancing residents' and office-goers' rights [2].
• The present plea cites recurring ingress-egress blockage and disrupted emergency/medical access in central Delhi, seeking Ramlila Maidan or another large ground instead [1].

Where it must be read narrowly

• The same 2018 ruling struck down blanket prohibitory orders as excessive — the mandate is regulation, not prohibition [2].
• Routine recourse to prohibitory orders under Section 163, BNSS 2023 (successor to Section 144 CrPC) can convert a proportionality test into a standing ban [5].
• "Rights of others" is elastic: mere inconvenience is not public disorder, and Article 19(3) demands proportionality, not convenience [4].
• Delhi's protest geography has already shifted once toward Jantar Mantar; further displacement to peripheral grounds dilutes proximity to the seat of power that gives protest its democratic value.
• Under Article 239AA, police and public order rest with the Union, so venue decisions sit outside elected-government accountability.

The observation is therefore a rule of proportionality, not of exclusion. Relocation is legitimate only if the replacement venue is adequate, accessible and reasonably central, backed by transparent statutory guidelines rather than executive discretion. The pending scrutiny is an opportunity to institutionalise that balance — securing both the citizen's voice and the commuter's road.