Published On: October 14, 2026
Authored By: Angel Singh
IILM University
Abstract
When the voice of dissent meets the machinery of the State at Jantar Mantar, the boundary between maintaining public order and suppressing fundamental freedom becomes dangerously thin. In an era defined by digital surveillance, the recurring standoff at Jantar Mantar serves as a critical constitutional litmus test for the endurance of Article 19 of the Constitution of India against the State’s evolving matrix of control. The research objective of this article is to examine to what extent the State can regulate protests at Jantar Mantar without infringing the fundamental rights of citizens to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly. The regulation of protest at Jantar Mantar implicates not only Article 19 but also Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty.
On 20 July 2026, students decided to hold a peaceful march towards Parliament to seek a dialogue with the Prime Minister on the multiple NEET paper leaks, despite heavy security. The issue was not just NEET; it concerned repeated paper leaks and a gap in our education system. Students from different fields joined the protest to demand a better education system for the youth and to seek justice. Protesters alleged indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by the police, including lathi blows to vulnerable parts of the body, and reports also recorded allegations of women protesters being slapped and beaten during the crackdown. This article concludes with suggestions to fill the research gap, including a transparent protest-permission mechanism, proportionality in restrictions, equipped protest zones, clear guidelines on police use of force, an independent complaint mechanism against the police, and regulation of surveillance and facial recognition.
Keywords: Jantar Mantar protest; Article 19; Article 21; democracy; Indian education system.
I. Introduction
The right to protest peacefully is a fundamental right of every Indian citizen under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, i.e. the right to assemble peaceably.[1] This article analyses the constitutional framework governing public demonstrations, the evolution of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest zone, and the State’s expanding matrix of regulatory and digital surveillance. The streets have always been the ultimate courtroom of democracy, yet at the heart of the Indian capital, a historic place like Jantar Mantar has become the definitive battleground where the constitutional rights of citizens are alleged to have been violated.
II. Constitutional Foundation of the Right to Protest
Article 19(1)(a): freedom of speech and expression
Article 19(1)(b): right to assemble peaceably and without arms
Article 19(2): reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression
Article 19(3): reasonable restrictions on the right to assemble peaceably[2]
Article 21: right to life and personal liberty[3]
III. Jantar Mantar & Regulation of Public Protest
On 20 July 2026, students decided to hold a peaceful march towards Parliament to seek a dialogue with the Prime Minister on the multiple NEET paper leaks, despite heavy security.[4] The issue was not just NEET; it concerned various paper leaks and a gap in our education system. Students from different fields joined the protest to demand a better education system for the youth and to seek justice. In this protest, the police are alleged to have misused their power. Protesters alleged indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force, including lathi blows to vulnerable parts of the body. Reports also recorded allegations of women protesters being slapped and beaten during the police crackdown.
During the protest, it was alleged that the police used lathi charges, pellet guns, tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets and electric batons, and even lathis allegedly fitted with nails, with injuries reported to both men and women. A particularly serious allegation was that women felt safest with the male protesters, because the police were allegedly beating girls on their private parts. The women were also allegedly told by the police that if they did not leave the place, they would be arrested and beaten by police officers at the station after being made to undress. The women in the protest felt safest with the boys, who formed a human wall near them so that they could leave the place safely. But the police allegedly showed no humanity, neither to the girls nor to the boys.
Indian politicians themselves send their own children abroad for education because they do not trust the Indian education system, which is why, when students demanded an explanation regarding the multiple paper-leak incidents, the government had no answer. As the matter worsened, several Delhi Metro stations were closed because of the protest, namely:
Lok Kalyan Marg
Rajiv Chowk
Patel Chowk
Central Secretariat
Supreme Court
Mandi House
New Delhi
Malviya Nagar
IFFCO Chowk
Kashmiri Gate
Janpath
Seva Teerth
ITO
Jor Bagh
Barakhamba Road
Ramakrishna Ashram Marg
Khan Market
As the situation escalated, tension between the students and the police led to clashes and heightened security measures across Central Delhi, and the students began demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. On 25 July 2026, the Education Minister resigned,[5] and the whole cycle, which began with student grievances and grew into a huge student protest, came to question political and ministerial accountability.
1. Student Grievances
Every protest begins with a grievance. In this case, students came forward because they believed that their concerns regarding the education and examination system were not being properly heard or addressed. When institutional mechanisms fail to provide satisfactory answers, students may choose to make their voices heard publicly.
This is where the Constitution becomes important. Students, like every other citizen, enjoy the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peaceably under Article 19(1)(b). These rights allow citizens to question government decisions and demand accountability.
2. The Jantar Mantar Protest
When dialogue and institutional channels appear insufficient, taking the grievance to the streets becomes a form of democratic expression. Jantar Mantar, being a recognised site for public demonstrations in New Delhi, has historically provided a space where citizens can gather and voice their concerns.
A peaceful student gathering at Jantar Mantar can therefore be understood not simply as a public disturbance, but as an exercise of constitutional dissent. At the same time, this right is not absolute. The State can impose reasonable restrictions when necessary to protect public order, security and the rights of others.
3. Police Action
As the number of protesters increases or tensions rise, the police have the responsibility of maintaining public order and ensuring the safety of both protesters and the general public. Some degree of police regulation may therefore be legitimate. The difficulty arises when maintaining order begins to turn into excessive use of force. The police cannot treat constitutional rights as an obstacle that can simply be removed whenever a protest becomes inconvenient. Their actions must remain within the boundaries of Articles 14, 19 and 21.[6]
The real constitutional question is therefore not whether the police can intervene, but how far they can go while intervening. Any restriction or use of force must have a legitimate purpose and must be necessary and proportionate to the situation.
4. When the Situation Escalates
Once allegations of excessive force, injuries, arrests or restrictions on protesters emerge, the issue can quickly become larger than the original student demands. What began as a question about students’ grievances can become a question about State accountability. Media reports, photographs and videos of the protest can bring the incident to the attention of the wider public. Political parties, civil-society organisations and ordinary citizens may then begin questioning the government’s handling of the situation.
At this point, the central question changes. It is no longer only about what the students were demanding; it is also about whether the State’s response to those demands was lawful, reasonable and proportionate.
5. Demand for Ministerial Accountability
When a protest concerns the functioning of a particular government department, public pressure may eventually extend to the minister responsible for that department. Protesters and political opponents may demand explanations and, in some circumstances, even call for the minister’s resignation. This brings the principle of ministerial responsibility into the discussion. In a parliamentary democracy, ministers are politically accountable for the functioning of their departments and are expected to answer for major failures or controversies.
6. Dharmendra Pradhan’s Resignation
The protests, the subsequent controversy surrounding the State’s response, and the growing demands for accountability contributed to a wider political debate over ministerial responsibility, culminating in Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation.[7]
IV. Judicial Approach to the Right to Protest
Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police[8]
The Supreme Court examined the appellant’s contention that the rules framed under Section 33(o) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951,[9] which required prior written permission to hold public meetings on public streets, were unconstitutional. The petitioner argued that such rules violated Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India, which guarantee the right to freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably without arms. Upon thorough analysis, the Court held that Rule 7 of the Police Rules, which mandated prior permission for public meetings, was indeed unconstitutional. The primary reason was that Rule 7 vested unchecked and arbitrary discretion in the Police Commissioner to grant or deny permission without sufficient safeguards, thereby infringing the fundamental rights of citizens. The Court emphasised the necessity for regulations to be clear, precise and subject to judicial oversight to prevent misuse of authority.
The judgment in Himat Lal K. Shah set a significant precedent in Indian constitutional law by delineating the boundaries within which the State can regulate public assemblies. It underscored the necessity for laws regulating fundamental rights to be precise, transparent and devoid of arbitrary discretion. Future legislation and administrative regulations governing public assemblies and processions would need to incorporate clear guidelines and objective standards to ensure that they do not infringe constitutional rights. This decision acts as a safeguard against authoritarian misuse of regulatory powers, ensuring that citizens’ rights to free assembly and speech are protected against unwarranted State interference.
Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re[10]
The case was taken up by the Supreme Court suo motu when the Government imposed Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)[11] and attempted to suppress a peaceful crowd of sleeping protesters at Ramlila Maidan. This was followed by an evacuation of the protest ground at 12:30 a.m., using water cannons, tear gas and other means, which resulted in many injuries and one death.
The case discussed the imposition of Section 144 of the CrPC and examined the procedural safeguards that must be followed. It held that, in order to pass an order under Section 144, there must be a co-existence of material facts, an imminent threat and the requirement for immediate preventive steps to prevent harm. The Court reaffirmed that passing an order under Section 144 is not violative of the freedom under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. It also held that taking prior police permission for holding protests would not infringe the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), as this would fall within the ambit of the reasonable restrictions contemplated under Articles 19(2) and 19(3).
V. Suggestions & Reforms
1. Establish a transparent protest-permission mechanism.
2. Ensure that restrictions satisfy proportionality.
3. Create multiple well-equipped protest zones in Delhi.
4. Protect emergency access.
5. Adopt clear guidelines on police use of force.
6. Create an independent mechanism for complaints against the police.
7. Regulate surveillance and facial recognition.
8. Give protesters a right to appeal against refusal of permission.
9. Conduct periodic judicial and administrative review of protest restrictions.
VI. Conclusion
Jantar Mantar highlights a critical crossroads for Indian constitutional law. The State possesses a legitimate mandate to maintain public order and preserve civic infrastructure. However, when it deploys tools like continuous bureaucratic denials, biometric surveillance and criminal litigation to suppress dissent, it weakens democratic expression. For the constitutional right to protest to remain meaningful, the judiciary must ensure that spatial regulation does not turn into complete isolation, and that the State’s policing powers do not compromise the fundamental liberty of its citizens.
The research objective of this article was to examine to what extent the State can regulate protests at Jantar Mantar without infringing the fundamental rights of citizens to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The State has a duty not only to protect the right to protest but also to ensure that the exercise of that right does not endanger life and public safety. The protests, the subsequent controversy surrounding the State’s response, and the growing demands for accountability contributed to a wider political debate over ministerial responsibility, culminating in Dharmendra Pradhan’s resignation. The suggestions set out above are offered to fill the research gap and meet the objective of this article.
Lastly, I want to conclude with one question: why does a peaceful protest become suppression?
References
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(b).
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 19, cls. 1(a)–(b), 2–3.
[3] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[4] Umaima Amir, Indian Education Minister Resigns Amid Student Protests over Paper Leak, ARY NEWS (July 25, 2026), https://arynews.tv/indian-education-minister-dharmendra-pradhan-resigns-amid-mounting-pressure.
[5] Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan Quits; CJP, Opposition Hail It as Victory of Youth, Democracy, THE PRINT (July 25, 2026), https://theprint.in/india/education-min-dharmendra-pradhan-quits-cjp-oppn-hail-it-as-victory-of-youth-democracy/2996678/; Dharmendra Pradhan Resigns Under Pressure from Student Protests, NEWSLAUNDRY (July 25, 2026), https://www.newslaundry.com/2026/07/25/dharmendra-pradhan-resigns-under-pressure-from-student-protests.
[6] INDIA CONST. arts. 14, 19, 21.
[7] See supra note 5.
[8] Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, (1973) 1 SCC 227 (India).
[9] Bombay Police Act, No. 22 of 1951, § 33(o), INDIA CODE (1951).
[10] Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re, (2012) 5 SCC 1 (India).
[11] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2 of 1974, § 144, INDIA CODE (1974).
