Supreme Court to examine plea on Jantar Mantar as protest venue

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an alternative protest venue in Delhi, with the petitioner arguing that Jantar Mantar is no longer suitable for demonstrations because they inconvenience local residents and disrupt essential services. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notices to the Centre and other authorities and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to seek instructions on the issues raised. The PIL, filed by Satish Chand Kaushik, contends that protests at Jantar Mantar create problems for local residents by affecting access, movement and the supply of essential goods and medical services. During the hearing, the Chief Justice said the plea raised important concerns. "It has been stated in the plea that Jantar Mantar is not a proper site anymore for such protests due to ingress and egress issues. Supply of medical essentials etc. I think this is important... Please take instructions, Mr Solicitor. Issue notice and list this separately," the CJI said. The petitioner's counsel also referred to a proposed political march and urged the court to ensure that 'another July 20 incident should be avoided'. The bench, however, declined to comment on the proposed event. "They know how to handle it. If they cannot, come to us for mishandling. I am sure they will handle (it)," the CJI observed. The matter has been directed to be listed separately. The hearing comes after the Supreme Court declined an oral request by an advocate to take suo motu cognisance of the police action during the July 20 'Chalo Sansad' protest at Jantar Mantar.

At the time, the bench had said it did not want to view videos of the incident during judicial proceedings and asked the advocate not to raise issues that were not before the court. Following the protests, the Supreme Court Bar Association had passed a resolution condemning the alleged use of excessive force against students and lawyers and called for an impartial, time-bound inquiry into the incident.