Why the location of a protest matters | LME 173 | Pooja Prasanna

For more than three decades, Jantar Mantar in New Delhi was where people came to make themselves heard by the political establishment. 

It is barely two kilometres from the Parliament and the Union government’s offices.

Tamil Nadu farmers came here holding skulls. 

Wrestlers came here demanding accountability. 

And even the India Against Corruption protest was held at Jantar Mantar.

The location mattered. 

Politicians and bureaucrats could not pretend these people did not exist. 

Journalists did not have to travel to the outskirts of the city to find them. 

Ordinary commuters could see them, ask questions and understand what they were protesting about.

Now, consider what happens when you move that protest away- somewhere out of sight

Now, some people may ask- does the location of a protest matter?

Yes, it does

And that conversation goes beyond Jantar Mantar and Delhi and even the current protests against Gyanesh Kumar

Across Indian cities, governments are deciding where dissent can take place, often in the name of traffic, security and public order.

This change matters to all of us

Let Me Explain

On October 12, 2026, the Delhi Police issued a standing order de-notifying Jantar Mantar as an authorised protest venue. 

Under the new rules, protests in Delhi can happen at the Ramlila Maidan, the Central Business District ground in Shahdara, and Burari ground in North Delhi.

The distance of Burari ground from  Parliament is roughly 23 kilometres. 

So even if thousands of protesters gather here, the impact is very different. The same numbers can look far less significant.

So practically, the right to protest remains, but the protest itself is moved out of sight. 

Dissent allowed in principle while less effective in practice.

First, let us understand why the location of a protest matters.

But before that, a quick reminder. Democracy isn't just about what the government promises. It's also about whether people can question those in power, disagree with them and have their voices heard.

At TNM, we think these questions deserve reporting, scrutiny and follow-up.

If you agree, support our journalism. It's the festival season, and fewer people have been signing up for subscriptions. But our work can't stop just because it's a difficult time of year.

Scan the QR code on your screen and contribute whatever amount you can to support Let Me Explain. Think of it as a small part of your festival spending that goes towards keeping independent journalism going.

Like LME? Support the show: https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme

Like our journalism? Become a subscriber: https://www.thenewsminute.com/subscription

A protest is not simply a gathering of people who happen to agree with one another. It is a way of making a grievance visible.

Think about the difference between a petition sent to a ministry and a group of citizens standing outside that ministry.

Maybe they are holding photographs of people whose lives have been affected by its decisions.

A written petition can be filed, acknowledged and forgotten. But a protest creates a public event. It forces people to ask why this group has gathered and what it wants.

Also think of this: Organising a protest is expensive—it requires transport, food, accommodation, and most times these are organised by people who are using their last penny to come together.

Banishing demonstrations to city outskirts compounds these costs and with diminishing returns.  

In Bengaluru, demonstrations are confined to Freedom Park - apparently to manage traffic in a city that’s already bogged down by bad traffic

Mumbai relies on barricades at Azad Maidan to sanitize its protests

Hyderabad’s 2017 bid to push protests from Dharna Chowk to the outskirts made the goal explicit: drive dissent out of view.

The pattern is identical across cities: designated protest zones don't preserve dissent—they contain and neutralize it.

All these efforts are despite the Constitution protecting peaceful protests through Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(b), which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.

The Constitution is clear- The right to protest is not an unlimited right to occupy any public space, at any time, in any manner.

Peaceful protest is protected.  

The state can impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and other constitutionally recognised grounds. It can regulate routes, manage traffic and respond to genuine security threats.

But these restrictions have to be reasonable, proportionate and necessary, 

And they cannot effectively prevent people from exercising their rights.

The Supreme Court has dealt with this question repeatedly.

In a 1972 case, Himat Lal K. Shah versus Commissioner of Police, the Supreme Court said that the police can regulate public meetings. But that power has limits. The state cannot give the police unchecked powers to ban public meetings altogether.

In 2018, came a judgment directly relevant to what is happening at Jantar Mantar.

In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan versus Union of India, the Supreme Court examined restrictions on protests at Jantar Mantar. Concerns had been raised about noise pollution during protests.

A Division Bench noted that a total blanket ban on demonstrations at central, traditional sites like Jantar Mantar is unconstitutional. 

The verdict made three things clear: first, authorities must regulate—not suppress—dissent through proper guidelines on noise and timing.

Second, repeatedly imposing curfew and using other prohibitory orders is an administrative misuse of an emergency power.

Third, the court said that if protests are moved to places like Ramlila Maidan, these venues must still be reasonably central, easy to reach, and have basic facilities. After all, protesters must be able to get their message across to the people in power.

The Court recognized that the rights of protesters had to be balanced against those of residents and commuters.

And authorities have to find a way to regulate demonstrations while protecting the right to peaceful assembly.

The government cannot simply point to traffic, noise or inconvenience and conclude that the solution is to move all dissent somewhere else.

Which brings us to another provision frequently used to regulate gatherings: Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, or BNSS.

This provision replaced Section 144 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 163 allows an Executive Magistrate to issue written orders in urgent situations where immediate action is needed to prevent harm or restore order.

An Executive Magistrate by the way is a police officer of a certain rank and not a judicial officer. So the police decides who can protest where 

In other words, this is an emergency power used by the police. 

And as we are seeing in Delhi, Section 163 is being deployed as a tactic to stop citizens from protesting.

The Supreme Court made this clear in its 2020 judgment in Anuradha Bhasin versus Union of India, which dealt with restrictions imposed in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Court said prohibitory orders cannot be used routinely to curb legitimate expression. Any such restriction must be justified, necessary and proportionate to the situation. The orders must also be made public and remain open to judicial review.

The authorities must also weigh the impact on people’s fundamental rights against the public interest they are trying to protect.

Section 163 does not automatically make every gathering without written police permission illegal. That depends on the orders in force and the circumstances.  

So look at the irony here

Eventually citizens and groups have to take permission from the very forces they are protesting against.

And when they are directed to protest at a site far from the centres of power, exercising that right becomes much harder.

Delhi's history shows how that narrowing can happen over time.

In 1988, farmer leader Mahendra Singh Tikait brought a massive mobilisation to the Boat Club lawns, close to the seat of national power.

In 1993, protests at Boat Club were prohibited, and Jantar Mantar became an important alternative.

Over the years, Jantar Mantar itself came under pressure over traffic, noise and security concerns. Now, in October 2026, its status as an authorised protest venue was withdrawn.

Notice the progression. A protest site becomes inconvenient. It is shifted. The replacement eventually becomes inconvenient too. The next solution is to move the protest farther away.

The legal question is whether the orders governing Jantar Mantar meet these constitutional requirements. Simply designating other places for protests does not automatically make those orders valid.

But there is a simpler democratic question. If people can protest only in places where they are unlikely to get the government's attention or make their voices heard, what is the point of the protest in the first place?

Like LME? Support the show: https://rzp.io/rzp/support-lme

Like our journalism? Become a subscriber: https://www.thenewsminute.com/subscription

Produced by Akshay Lal, script by Pooja Prasanna, camera by Ajay R, edit by Nikhil Sekhar ET, Vignesh Manickam