On 12 October, Delhi police denotified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site in the national capital. Instead, three new venues – Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground, and CBD Ground – were designated for the purpose.

For over three decades, Jantar Mantar stood as the beating heart of protests in the national capital. It was known as a place where the angry, the aggrieved and the unheard gathered to make their voices count. But the move by authorities in Delhi put the iconic stage of dissent away from the capital’s political heart and corridors of power.

Two of the new sites — CBD ground and Burari are several miles away from Central Delhi where Parliament stands. The other one Ramlila is near New Delhi railway station and comes with a cost to stage protests.

The decision to denotify Jantar Mantar came at a time when Opposition parties, civil society groups such as the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), and student organisations, including the All India Students’ Association (AISA) and the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), held protests and marches around Jantar Mantar demanding resignation of Chief Election Commisisoner (CEC), Gyanesh Kumar over irregularties in Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter rolls.

The move was criticised for world over protests are usually held in spaces close to the corridors of power.

Protest across the worlds are organised at the doorstep of power. Lafayette square in Washington is right across White House in the US, Parliament square and whitehall in London and Place De La Republique in Paris, France are classic examples.

The minister eventually resigned after about a month-long protest at Jantar Mantar, the erstwhile designated site for demonstrations in New Delhi, the national capital

The CJP protesters have again come together with opposition parties, this time demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over irregularities in the Election Commission’s functioning during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

At least 1,200 protests were met with police intervention, the Reuters report said. While Delhi remains the hub for CJP’s major demonstrations this year, the total number of protests there fell to 364 from 543 in 2016. Protests were held in Mumbai too.

Demonstrations in India have risen significantly, growing from 10,642 in 2016 to over 18,629 by 2 October 2026, after peaking at 22,130 in 2024, according to ACLED.

More than 2,500 demonstrations – including peaceful protests, protests with police intervention and violent demonstrations took place across India in August 2026. This surge has brought increased police intervention, with over 200 demonstrations met with force in August 2026, a decade high for any single month. the Reuters report said.

Protest is a fundamental right in democracy, enabling citizens to register dissent, demand accountability and effect change in public policy.

The struggle for independence is embedded in India’s protest culture. From the Chipko movement for environmental conservation to the Mandal Commission protests against caste-based reservations, the right to protest has been India’s democratic lifeline.

Protests have ranged from the historic march to Dandi in the Salt Satyagraha led by Mahatma Gandhi to Anna Hazare’s 2011 movement. The famous farmers’ protest of 2020-21 led the government to withdraw the controversial agrarian laws.

Ultimately, the decision to intervene rests with executive magistrates or police.

Once an intervention is decided, Indian policing rules require a phased approach: persuasion and warnings before force. If necessary, only minimum force should be used and stopped once order is restored. Those refusing to disperse may be legally detained. Reuters was unable to verify with police how closely these guidelines are followed.

When can law enforcement authorities stop a peaceful protest? Do the organisers need permission before holding the protests?

A peaceful, unarmed protest is protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), according to Bhargav KS, Managing Partner at KS & BKS Law Associates, Bengaluru. “It is not inherently a law-and-order problem. Dissent, criticism of the government or inconvenience does not, by itself, establish a threat to public order,” Bhargav KS told LiveMint.

Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of Constitution guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully and without arms. But Articles 19(2) and 19(3) allow authroities to impose reasonable restrictions, including in the interests of public order.

“Authorities may address specific unlawful acts and protect public access, but restrictions must have a lawful basis and be necessary and proportionate. The distinction is between regulating unlawful conduct and suppressing constitutional expression,” he said.

Apart from whether the protest is peaceful or not, there is also another aspect that drives police crackdown. In case the organisers move out of designated place, even if peacefully, it also amounts to breach of permission, as per experts.

“However, the permission process cannot become an arbitrary veto over constitutional rights. Refusal must rest on legally sustainable grounds, and restrictions must satisfy Articles 19(2) and 19(3). The mere absence of permission does not, by itself, establish a threat to public order or justify disproportionate police action, he said.

Recently, CJP leades were held by police calling it prevent arrest. The decision on preventive action is taken by the authority empowered by law. Under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or specially empowered Executive Magistrate may issue preventive orders, recording material facts warranting immediate intervention.

“Under Section 170, police may arrest to prevent a cognisable offence only where they know of a design to commit it and it cannot otherwise be prevented. Both powers remain subject to judicial review,” he said.

On 9 October, the Supreme Court, during a hearing on restrictions ahead of the CJP protest, questioned the proposed transport restrictions and invoked the principle of proportionality while cautioning against using a “hammer to kill a fly”.

The Court said measures could regulate transport where necessary but should not indiscriminately shut it down.

But regulation cannot become an arbitrary power to prohibit assemblies altogether, the courts have held in past instances. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan vs Union of India (2018), the case about protests at Jantar Mantar, the Court rejected a blanket prohibition and required authorities to devise a regulatory mechanism balancing protesters’ rights against those of residents and commuters.

Even if police considers that a certain venue is not appropriate because of its capacity or security concerns, an alternative should ideally be provided, according to a former Delhi police official who did not want to be named.

Thus a permission before a protest is key. In case of CJP protest held at Jantar Mantar against Dharmendra Pradhan, permission was sought for one day. But CJP extended the protest beyond one day and continued for about a month till Pradhan quit.

Shah said merely assembling a crowd of 8,000 people within an area of one-and-a-half km would not make Rahul Gandhi the voice of the nation. Shah said Rahul Gandhi needed to engage in some self-reflection, noting that the Congress had repeatedly been rejected by voters across northern and northeastern India.

Shah’s remarks came after Rahul Gandhi on 12 October led a massive protest of INDIA bloc on the streets of central Delhi against election commission and CEC Gyanesh Kumar.

On October 10, BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad said based on the events of today and the preceding three days, two things have become clear. “One, Indian democracy has thwarted attempts to incite anarchy. Two, the country will be governed by Parliament, not by the streets,” the former Law Minister said.

“We are not opposed to protests, but you have weaponized street protests because of your electoral defeats,” Prasad said indirectly blaming the Congress and other political parties for the street protests.

A protest does not automatically become anarchy, as most protests are expressions of political grievance or demands directed at the government rather than attempts to destroy the state itself. However, a protest transitions into a state resembling anarchy or severe civil disorder under specific conditions:

A demonstration shifts into practical anarchy when established legal authorities, police, or governing institutions completely lose the ability or power to maintain order, enforce laws, or arbitrate disputes in that area. Or when demonstrators abandon peaceful assembly or structured demands and instead engage in widespread lawlessness, unpunished crime, destruction of property, and the complete breakdown of public safety.

Politically, a protest evolves into a revolutionary anarchy only when it actively seeks to dismantle or overthrow a government and replace state hierarchy with a leaderless or decentralised community structure.

(With agency inputs)