Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal spoke out against the authorities' decision to revoke Jantar Mantar's status as an approved venue for public demonstrations, arguing that the location had long served as an established site for such gatherings.

Sibal stated that the act of demonstrating has come to be treated as a punishable offence in India with growing regularity, which he described as reflecting a broader trend. He put forward the position that constitutional protections cover the act of protest, and expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would affirm those protections.

Speaking at a virtual press conference, Sibal pointed to joblessness, a faltering economy, and reduced public spending as factors he said were feeding a broader loss of faith in the government among ordinary people. He also put forward the position that the administration ought to relinquish power for the good of the country.

Sibal noted that moving protests to Ramlila Maidan posed a practical obstacle, given that Dussehra celebrations were under way at the venue and would interfere with any gatherings planned there.

He went on to claim that prior demonstrations at Jantar Mantar had been stirred up by forces operating from outside the movement. According to his account, a lorry loaded with stones had been transported to the location, and a group of unidentified individuals — among them officers working out of uniform — carried out acts of violence targeting those gathered in protest. His account included descriptions of protesters being struck with batons and women being subjected to physical attacks.

Sibal also drew attention to reported travel disruptions tied to the demonstrations, among them a halt to Metro operations and restricted rail entry into Delhi. He framed those actions as part of a wider pattern aimed at limiting the space for opposing viewpoints.

Sibal pointed to protest zones established near major government buildings in cities such as New York, London, and Paris as models worth considering, and raised the question of whether India ought to take a comparable path. He drew a contrast between the government's outward promotion of democratic principles and what he described as constraints on free expression at home.

Sibal raised the prospect of social unrest, telling those present that mounting pressure from the government's policies had reached a point where an eruption of some kind had become, in his view, a real possibility. He also put forward that gatherings held previously at Jantar Mantar had unfolded without incident, and that a follow-up event referred to as 'Jantar Mantar 2.0', scheduled for 10 October, would be conducted in the same spirit. He noted that the right of assembly is one that carries lawful limits.

Pointing to a recent march led by Rahul Gandhi alongside INDIA bloc members toward the Supreme Court — one that concluded without any disruption — Sibal posed the question of why young demonstrators face a different standard of treatment. He put forward the position that the demonstrations carried no genuine threat to the state as an institution, arguing that what they placed at risk was the government's credibility and its standing with the public.

Speaking to a prominent news outlet, Sibal said he believed the Supreme Court would uphold the constitutional right to hold protests. His remarks also addressed questions about the integrity of voter registration rolls ahead of the 2024 polls, with centralised electoral administration identified by him as the source of the problem. Sibal put the government's backing of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar under scrutiny, arguing that any shift in Kumar's standing would lay bare the extent of executive reach into the country's electoral machinery.