"The right to protest is a fundamental right, but the right to protest at a place of one's choosing is not." Critically examine this in light of recent Supreme Court proceedings on Jantar Mantar.

The right to protest draws on Art. 19(1)(a) (speech) and Art. 19(1)(b) (peaceful assembly). Under Art. 19(3), the State may restrict it in the interest of public order. Jantar Mantar has been de-notified as a protest site, and that decision has been challenged in the Supreme Court. In its affidavit, the Delhi Police calls Jantar Mantar a "public road", not a "site". It argues that nobody has a fundamental right to protest at a particular place [1]. The statement is legally sound, but only in part.

Merits of the statement

• Venue is subject to restriction: In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the Supreme Court upheld peaceful protest but made it subject to reasonable restrictions and regulation [2].
• Public order: The stretch hosts about 1,300 protests a year. The 20 July NEET-UG crowd "far exceeded capacity" and raised a constant fear of a stampede [1].
• Security and others' rights: The area holds 78 foreign missions and 99 Central offices nearby. It recorded 109 theft FIRs and 23 public-order FIRs between 1 and 17 August [1].

Limits of the statement

• De-notification can become a ban: In 2018 the Court rejected a blanket ban and ordered regulated use of Jantar Mantar [2]. Removing the site without an equal alternative brings back what the Court refused.
• Proportionality: The State must use the least restrictive measure that works, such as crowd caps, permits or time slots. The affidavit names no alternative site and does not say why milder tools failed [1].
• Weak evidence: 17 days of data with no baseline cannot prove that protests cause crime. Most of the FIRs record thefts against protesters [1].
• "Sight and sound": UN General Comment No. 37 presumes blanket restrictions are disproportionate. It protects assembly within sight and sound of the target audience [3]. A protest far from Parliament loses its communicative value.

Assessment There is no absolute right to a chosen venue. Still, the place a protest is held is part of what the State must justify when it restricts the right.

The State may regulate where people protest, but it cannot regulate dissent out of sight. The Court could ask the police to apply the 2018 guidelines, use capacity-based permits and name a central, accessible alternative. That would keep the deliberative democracy the Preamble promises, where liberty of expression is balanced against public order.