Three days before Delhi Police withdrew Jantar Mantar's status as a designated protest venue in central Delhi on Monday, 12 October 2026, both the Supreme Court and the Union government had arrived at a shared position on identifying an alternative location where residents of the national capital could voice dissent through lawful and peaceful means.

Positions taken by both the judiciary and the administration on 9 October held that the heart of Delhi lacked sufficient space to accommodate demonstrations. Access to basic necessities was withheld from those taking part in the demonstrations. The disruption that demonstrations near Jantar Mantar posed to everyday commuters in Delhi also came up during the exchange.

India's Chief Justice pointed out that central Delhi lacked toilet facilities, access to potable water, and basic medical provisions. A four-page ruling dated 9 October shows the Supreme Court bench, with Chief Justice Surya Kant presiding, calling on the Union government to identify an alternative site that is open and allows for adequate space.

The decision issued at the 9 October hearing — a session convened to weigh petitions challenging travel and assembly restrictions imposed on and around the capital — arrived a day before youth-led demonstrations scheduled for 10 October, where attendees planned to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Jantar Mantar, the area within the capital set aside for public demonstrations, was understood at the time of the hearing to be where the protest would take place.

According to the court document, every party involved — the petitioners among them — had expressed willingness to locate an alternative venue for the protest within Delhi. Counsel on both sides reached agreement during the hearing that the time had come for those conducting lawful, peaceful demonstrations to have access to basic amenities. Locating and formally designating alternative sites with the capacity to accommodate that infrastructure remained a step yet to be taken.

The ruling of 9 October directed the relevant authority to weigh the proposal and reach a fitting determination on it. That same bench had put a comparable proposition to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta — then representing the Union government — during proceedings held in August.

A petition lodged by Satish Chand Kaushik, with advocate Aakarshan Aditya handling his representation, was before the court during those proceedings. The filing called for Jantar Mantar to be removed from its standing as the default venue for public gatherings and demonstrations in the capital, with Ramlila Maidan — or another ground of adequate size and security — taking over as the primary location set aside for such activity.

Three locations — Ramlila Maidan, Burari ground in north Delhi, and CBD ground in East Delhi — have been formally set aside for protests and demonstrations under a Standing Order on Guidelines For Holding Protests or Demonstrations in Delhi, issued by Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar.

A 2018 ruling from the country's highest court set out a guiding principle: the freedom to demonstrate is to be weighed against the entitlement of local residents to go about their lives without disruption. Alongside its decision removing demonstration restrictions at Jantar Mantar and Boat Club, the bench set out a broader position: the freedom to dissent stands as a cornerstone of democratic governance, yet any gathering exercising that freedom is to take place within areas officially designated for that purpose.

A 2020 ruling in the Shaheen Bagh matter established that fundamental rights could not be exercised in isolation from one another, with the bench noting that the entitlements of those staging a demonstration had to be weighed against the entitlements of those seeking to use public thoroughfares. In that ruling, the bench noted that the two must live alongside one another with mutual respect.