"The right to protest is a facet of Article 19(1)(b) but not an unrestricted right to choose the venue." Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court and Delhi High Court observations on Jantar Mantar.

Article 19(1)(b) guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, read with 19(1)(a), it makes protest a constitutionally protected form of dissent [1]. But the same Article, through clause 19(3), permits reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order — a distinction the ongoing Jantar Mantar litigation has sharply exposed.

Protest as a facet of Article 19(1)(b)

• Peaceful assembly is a fundamental right, not a concession of the executive; restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate under Article 19(3) [1].
• In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court refused a blanket ban on protests at Jantar Mantar, holding that repeated prohibitory orders cannot substitute for regulation, and directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to frame balancing guidelines [2].
• Jantar Mantar itself became the capital's designated site in the 1990s after demonstrations were shifted from the Boat Club — showing regulation, not extinction, of the right.

Why venue is a regulated, not absolute, choice

• In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020, Shaheen Bagh), the Court held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely; dissent must occur at designated places [3].
• The State may regulate time, place and manner, weighing residents' mobility, traffic and safety against protesters' rights [3].
• Administrative accountability matters: in August 2026 the Delhi High Court had to direct Delhi Police to formally decide a pending permission plea by the All India Dalit Christian Rights Protection Committee, seeking Scheduled Caste status for Dalit Christians — an issue before the Justice K.G. Balakrishnan Commission [4][5].

Recent judicial signals

• Justice Amit Mahajan's oral remark that the city "should not be put to ransom" is obiter, not binding; a separate Supreme Court PIL on Jantar Mantar's suitability is pending [4].
• Excessive venue restriction risks shrinking civic space, particularly for marginalised groups whose main advocacy tool is public assembly.

Thus the venue is regulable but the right is not. The way forward lies in the 2018 mandate — transparent, time-bound permission norms and a purpose-built protest zone with civic amenities — so that public order and the constitutional promise of dissent reinforce, rather than displace, each other.