At an online press conference held on Saturday, Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal voiced opposition to the government's move to remove Jantar Mantar's designation as a permitted protest venue. Sibal — who holds a seat in Parliament as an Independent and practises as a senior advocate — argued that the act of protesting had, in practice, been treated as a criminal matter, while also expressing his expectation that the Supreme Court would intervene to uphold that democratic freedom.
Sibal argued that joblessness, a weakening economy, and cuts to public spending had eroded public trust in the government, adding that the act of protesting had itself come to be treated as a punishable offence. He told reporters at the press conference that the status of a fundamental right no longer applied in this instance, noting that demonstrating in public — a freedom enshrined in law — had nonetheless drawn legal consequences for those who exercised it.
He raised objections to the removal of Jantar Mantar's designated status as a venue for public demonstrations, noting that while authorities had pointed to Ramlila Maidan as an alternative, the Dussehra celebrations already under way there would render that ground unavailable for gatherings. He questioned why an established protest venue had been taken away and why demonstrators would be required to seek out a replacement location.
Sibal traced the disorder at the earlier Jantar Mantar rally to individuals transported in from other areas, citing as evidence a truck carrying stones that had turned up at the site. He further contended that individuals whose identities remained unknown, along with police officers operating in civilian attire, had carried out acts of violence against the gathering, adding that demonstrators were forcibly removed and struck with batons, while women among them faced physical assault.
Sibal went on to contend that public transit access came under pressure throughout the demonstrations, pointing to the halting of Metro operations and curbs placed on rail services bound for Delhi.
Drawing on examples from other nations, he pointed out that cities including New York, London, and Paris had set aside dedicated areas near key government buildings where public demonstrations could take place, noting that within New York, locations such as Union Square and Greenwich Village served that purpose. Located in the urban core, the site sits at the heart of the city's central district.
Protesters in London have several recognised venues available to them, including the square adjoining Parliament, Speaker's Corner within Hyde Park, Trafalgar Square, and the stretch of Whitehall fronting Downing Street. He pointed to a number of venues spread across central Paris — among them the Bastille, the Place de la Concorde, and the Trocadéro — as options under consideration.
Sibal drew a contrast between the government's stated role as a global champion of democracy — invoking the Vishwaguru ideal and the notion that the country's democratic traditions serve as a model for other nations — and what he described as restrictions on free expression within its own borders. He contended that the same freedoms of diversity and expression promoted abroad were being suppressed at home, and that the mounting internal pressures would ultimately reach a breaking point for which those in power would bear responsibility.
Invoking Article 19(1) of the Constitution, Sibal noted that the freedom to protest carries with it permissible limitations, among them those tied to state security and the maintenance of public order. His position was that the earlier gatherings at Jantar Mantar had unfolded without incident, and that the planned 10 October event — referred to as Jantar Mantar 2.0 — would have proceeded in the same orderly fashion.
The rally led by Rahul Gandhi and INDIA bloc allies toward the Supreme Court concluded without any reported incidents of unrest, according to Sibal's statement at the press conference. Sibal put two questions to the court: why protesters who were young faced treatment distinct from others, and what concrete harm their gatherings could pose to state authority — adding that no such threat existed, in his contention.
Sibal further contended that the administration's capacity to continue governing stood on uncertain ground, having lost the confidence of those it serves. He voiced the view that the judiciary would uphold the freedom to demonstrate, adding that the administration had so far been unable to bring the highest court under its influence.
He further contended that the 2024 electoral rolls had been interfered with due to the centralised nature of election administration, and raised doubts about the ruling party's backing of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Sibal alleged that the reason Kumar held such value to the ruling party was that any departure — whether through resignation or removal — would reveal who had directed him in carrying out his duties. He alleged that the 2024 voters' list had also been tampered with, pointing to the centralisation of systems as the basis for that claim.
