Source : INDIA TODAY NEWS
The de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site by the Delhi Police raises a big question: does the decision crush dissent or restore law and public order? On this episode of Democratic Newsroom, India Today editors and reporters examine whether the relatively small site, difficult entry and exit, barricading and disruption associated with recent demonstrations justifies moving protests elsewhere. The discussion looks at the viability of Ramlila Maidan as a possible notified alternative, provided existing bookings are cancelled and the ground is kept available.
advertisement
The discussion was initially moderated by Preeti Choudhry, Managing Editor, India Today TV. She was joined by Rajdeep Sardesai, Senior Journalist and Consulting Editor who later took over as the moderator midway; Pooja Shali, Editor, India Today TV; Sonal Mehrotra Kapoor, Senior Editor; Jessica Goel, Senior Producer; and Aneesha Mathur, Associate Editor. Together, the panel brought perspectives grounded in reporting on protests, courts, policing, public disruption, generational responses and the democratic importance of keeping demonstrations visible to journalists, political representatives and institutions of power.
The panel broadly treated peaceful protest as a democratic right, but differed over how the state should regulate its location and scale. Some argued that Jantar Mantar’s proximity to Parliament gives otherwise unheard citizens visibility that distant grounds cannot provide. Others stressed violence, security risks and the hardship imposed on commuters and residents. Ramlila Maidan emerged as a possible compromise, although questions remained about availability, cost and whether small groups would disappear within it. Police action, detentions, restrictions on journalists and cooperation between protesters and authorities also drew scrutiny.
The real issue is not an emotional attachment to one venue but whether the state genuinely permits dissent. Ramlila Maidan can serve as a central and manageable alternative if it remains available, while smaller gatherings could still use Jantar Mantar under a numerical cap. However, stopping trains, closing Metro stations, detaining individuals and deploying extensive security forces cannot become the answer to protest. Delhi must not function like a police capital; peaceful dissent requires accessible space rather than sweeping restrictions.
Jantar Mantar gives citizens arriving from across India a sense of access to power, especially those whose causes lack visibility. Protests must remain peaceful and violence is unacceptable, but isolated disorder cannot justify pushing dissent far from central Delhi. Ramlila Maidan may be an option if it is fully available, though small groups risk becoming invisible there. Police, protesters and society must cooperate, while journalists, content creators and other citizens cannot be detained merely for attending or documenting peaceful demonstrations.
The right to protest cannot grant agitators an unrestricted run when stone-pelting, injuries and widespread disruption affect ordinary people trying to travel safely. Both protesters and authorities must exercise restraint, and a larger venue such as Ramlila Maidan can provide visibility without paralysing central Delhi. Security concerns near Parliament also cannot be dismissed, given the institution’s vulnerability. Protest leaders carry a responsibility to reject violence clearly and ensure that calls for political change do not encourage anti-social elements or irresponsible action.
Protest is a citizen’s right and does not arise from government permission, although the police may impose reasonable restrictions to prevent unlawful conduct and undue disruption. Those restrictions cannot extinguish the right itself. Jantar Mantar matters because its location ensures that journalists, political parties and institutions notice even small groups. Moving demonstrations to Ramlila Maidan, Burari or another distant ground can remove that visibility, while competing events, limited availability and the cost of securing space may exclude protesters with few resources.
The Constitution, not the police, provides the right to protest, and a demonstration must be both heard and seen. Jantar Mantar serves as the social media of people without hashtags, lawyers or large followings: farmers, pension seekers and families seeking attention for personal grievances. Moving dissent out of sight risks moving it out of mind. If public inconvenience is the governing standard, it must apply consistently to political rallies, processions and other gatherings rather than being invoked selectively when public dissent intensifies.
Jantar Mantar has become more than a physical location for a generation that recognises it as shorthand for protest, including through online games and digital conversations. Yet dissent is no longer confined to one ground and can emerge through marches or gatherings elsewhere. A central site near Parliament should nevertheless remain available, particularly for small, everyday protests that receive little coverage. Denotification may not work over time because movements can begin with a handful of people and grow beyond any predetermined numerical threshold.
– Ends
SOURCE :- TIMES OF INDIA
