Should Indian cities have designated, serviced protest spaces? Critically evaluate in light of the Jantar Mantar experience.

Peaceful protest is protected by Art. 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). The State may limit it only through reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(2)–(3). In October 2026, the Supreme Court called a blanket transit ban into Delhi "over-reaching". It asked the government to find an open, spacious site for "peaceful and lawful" protest [1]. Designated protest spaces are desirable, but only as an added facility. They must never become the only place protest is allowed.

Case for designated, serviced spaces

• Dignity and safety: The Court noted that central Delhi protest areas, including Jantar Mantar, are cramped and lack washrooms, medical aid and drinking water [1].
• Balancing rights: In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the SC ruled out a complete ban on protests at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club. It also weighed residents' right to peaceful living and directed the government to frame guidelines [2].
• Predictable policing: A known venue lets police plan for crowds in advance. This reduces the temptation to use drastic pre-emptive steps, such as the 2026 cancellation of express trains from Keralam [1].
• Keeps roads open: A ready venue gives protesters an alternative to occupying public roads indefinitely, the concern raised in Amit Sahni (Shaheen Bagh, 2020).

Risks and limitations

• Out of sight, out of mind: A remote site lets protest technically happen without reaching the public or decision-makers. The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 37 says protests cannot be barred by generalised references to public order [3].
• Space can become a cage: Designating one site invites denial of permission everywhere else. Jantar Mantar itself was nearly shut down after an NGT order in 2017, which MKSS later reviewed [2].
• Access is not solved: In 2026, travellers were detained in several States and released on condition that they stay in their home city [1]. A better ground helps no one stopped on the way.
• Blanket orders persist: Anuradha Bhasin (2020) held that prohibitory orders cannot target the public in general and must use the least restrictive measure [4].

Designated, serviced spaces are a welcome facilitative step if they are additional, not exclusive. They should be centrally located, accessible and governed by transparent rules. Any restriction elsewhere must pass Bhasin's proportionality test, and free movement under Art. 19(1)(d) must be protected. With these safeguards, the Court's suggestion can become a model for facilitating dissent, upholding the constitutional view that peaceful protest sustains democracy.