As Delhi removes Jantar Mantar from its list of designated protest venues, a wider debate returns: should democracy keep dissent visible near centres of power, or move demonstrations to controlled spaces on the urban periphery?
By: Javid Amin | 13 October 2026
Srinagar / Delhi: A public square can be a marketplace in the morning, a transport hub in the afternoon and the centre of a political storm by evening. Across the world, certain streets, parks and open grounds have acquired a more enduring role: they have become places where citizens gather to challenge authority, demand accountability and make grievances visible.
London has Hyde Park’s Speakers’ Corner. New Delhi has long had Jantar Mantar. New York has Union Square, while Washington has the National Mall and Lafayette Square. In Srinagar, the clock tower at Lal Chowk—widely known as Ghanta Ghar—has become a powerful symbol of Kashmir’s political and public life.
These places differ in their legal status, histories and traditions. Some are formally recognised venues for public speaking or demonstrations; others have acquired their significance through repeated political use. But they share a common feature: they offer a physical stage on which private grievances can become public demands.
That question has gained fresh urgency in India after Delhi Police removed Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues on October 12, naming Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi as alternatives. The change has prompted a debate about accessibility, security, public order and the democratic value of keeping protest close to the institutions being challenged.
The controversy is about more than where a crowd may assemble. It concerns who gets heard, how dissent reaches the public and whether the regulation of protest can inadvertently limit its political impact.
Hyde Park: How a London Park Became a Symbol of Free Speech
The history of designated public-speaking spaces in Britain is closely associated with Hyde Park in London, particularly its Speakers’ Corner.
The site’s reputation grew out of a long struggle over access to public space and the right to express political views. In July 1866, members of the Reform League, which campaigned for an extension of voting rights, attempted to hold a mass meeting in Hyde Park despite official restrictions. The confrontation between demonstrators and authorities became part of a broader national debate over political participation and the use of public parks.
The struggle contributed to the longer history behind the Parks Regulation Act of 1872, which established a legal framework for regulating Britain’s royal parks. Speakers’ Corner subsequently became associated with public speaking and open-air debate.
It is important to distinguish this history from the idea that the law created an unrestricted right to demonstrate anywhere in the park. Hyde Park remains subject to rules governing public gatherings and park use. Its significance lies in the development of a recognised tradition of public expression within a regulated public space.
Over generations, Speakers’ Corner became known for political argument, religious debate, satire and challenges to conventional opinion. Its enduring appeal comes partly from the image of an ordinary person standing before strangers and making a case without needing access to a parliament, newspaper editorial page or television studio.
That tradition has attracted speakers from different political and intellectual backgrounds. The park’s history is also linked to wider struggles over suffrage, labour rights, religious expression and civil liberties.
The lesson is not that public speech requires no rules. It is that a democracy can acknowledge the legitimacy of dissent by preserving spaces where competing views can be heard.
Jantar Mantar: From Astronomical Observatory to India’s Protest Landmark
Jantar Mantar’s transformation into one of India’s best-known protest venues is a striking example of how a place can acquire a second identity.
Built in 1724 by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II, the Delhi observatory was designed for astronomical observations. Its monumental instruments were part of a broader scientific project to measure celestial movements and improve astronomical calculations.
Centuries later, the surrounding area acquired a very different role in the capital’s civic life. Its location near Parliament Street and the central government district made it an accessible and highly visible venue for political demonstrations.
Jantar Mantar emerged as Delhi’s designated protest site in the mid-1990s, after the Boat Club lawns near India Gate—previously an important location for demonstrations—were restricted as a protest venue in 1993.
Over the following decades, the site became a familiar address for campaigns involving farmers, students, workers, retired military personnel, social activists, civil society organisations and political parties.
Among the movements associated with Jantar Mantar were Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption campaign in 2011, protests over women’s safety, demonstrations by ex-servicemen seeking changes to military pension arrangements, and campaigns over public policy and government accountability.
Its importance did not rest on size alone. The site was close enough to the political centre to attract national media attention and allow demonstrators to frame their demands as direct appeals to those in power.
For many activists, Jantar Mantar offered a rare combination: a recognised place to assemble, proximity to the institutions they wanted to influence, and a history that made the venue immediately recognisable to the public.
Why its location matters
A protest’s effectiveness depends on more than the number of people attending. Visibility, access, timing, media coverage and proximity to decision-makers can all shape whether a demonstration gains public attention.
A gathering outside the political centre can still be large and influential. But moving a demonstration away from Parliament, government offices or major media locations may change how easily it attracts attention and how directly its message reaches the intended audience.
This is why Jantar Mantar became more than an administrative designation. Over time, it developed a recognisable identity as a place where people brought demands that they believed had not been adequately addressed through ordinary channels.
Its significance was built through repeated use—and through the expectation that a peaceful gathering there could make a grievance visible to the nation.
The Jantar Mantar Decision: A New Chapter in Delhi’s Protest Debate
On October 12, Delhi Police removed Jantar Mantar from the list of designated venues for protests and demonstrations. The revised arrangements named three alternatives: Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi.
According to the police order, the decision followed recommendations from a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to examine alternative locations for demonstrations.
The change has triggered competing arguments.
Supporters of relocating protests point to the demands of security, traffic management and the disruption that frequent demonstrations can cause in central Delhi. Traders and residents near protest routes may also be affected by road closures, crowd-control measures and the loss of access to shops or workplaces.
Critics, however, question whether all alternative venues offer the same accessibility, visibility and symbolic value as Jantar Mantar. The distance of some locations from Parliament and other political institutions has become a particular point of debate.
The practical implications are significant. A venue may have enough physical space to accommodate thousands of people yet remain less useful to a movement if it is difficult to reach, poorly connected to public transport or far from the institutions and media outlets that demonstrators want to engage.
The relocation debate therefore raises a question that cannot be answered by crowd capacity alone: does an alternative venue provide a meaningful opportunity for citizens to express dissent, or does it make protest less visible and less effective?
The answer may differ according to the venue, the nature of the demonstration and the conditions imposed on organisers. Ramlila Ground, for example, has a long history of large public gatherings and is located closer to central Delhi than Burari Ground. CBD Ground in East Delhi offers another designated option, but its practical accessibility and suitability will depend on the circumstances of individual demonstrations.
The new arrangement will need to be assessed not only by how efficiently it manages crowds, but also by whether citizens can use the venues to communicate their concerns without unnecessary barriers.
Global Protest Hotspots: Where Cities Meet Dissent
Cities around the world have spaces that repeatedly become focal points for public demonstrations. Their histories show that political expression is shaped by urban design, proximity to institutions and the way authorities regulate public assembly.
London: Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square
Trafalgar Square has hosted political rallies, campaigns and public gatherings for generations. Its central location and visibility make it a prominent place for groups seeking to attract attention to national issues.
Parliament Square, beside the Palace of Westminster, has an even more direct symbolic connection to political power. Demonstrations there place protesters within sight of the institutions responsible for making laws and holding government to account.
Both spaces operate under rules governing public assemblies. Their importance lies in the combination of central location, historical association and public visibility.
New York: Union Square
Union Square has long been associated with labour organising, political rallies, public demonstrations and social movements. Its history reflects New York’s role as a major centre of immigration, industry, activism and public debate.
The square’s central location and transport connections make it a practical gathering point, while its historical associations give demonstrations there an identity that extends beyond the immediate event.
Union Square illustrates how a public space can become a civic institution through repeated use, even without being exclusively reserved for protests.
Washington: The National Mall and Lafayette Square
The National Mall has hosted some of the most consequential demonstrations in American history, including the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, during which Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.
Lafayette Square, located near the White House, carries a different but equally powerful symbolism. Its proximity to the presidency makes it a frequent focal point for demonstrations directed at the executive branch.
These spaces illustrate two dimensions of protest: the capacity to mobilise large numbers of people in a national setting and the political force of assembling within sight of the institution being challenged.
Their use is nevertheless governed by rules concerning permits, security, access and public land.
Paris: Place de la Bastille
Place de la Bastille draws its political significance from the French Revolution and the fall of the Bastille prison in 1789. The square remains associated with popular mobilisation, republican politics and mass demonstrations.
Its historical identity makes it a powerful gathering point for movements seeking to connect contemporary demands with France’s revolutionary tradition.
Bastille demonstrates how the memory of an earlier political struggle can give a public space meaning long after the original events have passed.
Istanbul: Taksim Square
Taksim Square is one of Istanbul’s most recognisable public spaces and has played an important role in Turkish political and labour history. It became internationally prominent during the 2013 Gezi Park protests, which began over plans affecting a nearby green space and expanded into a wider movement against government policies.
The square’s history also includes episodes of labour mobilisation and political violence. Its contested status demonstrates that the relationship between a city’s symbolic spaces and public assembly can remain politically sensitive for decades.
Singapore: Hong Lim Park
Hong Lim Park offers a different model. Singapore designated the Speakers’ Corner there in 2000, creating a specific space for certain forms of public speaking and assembly under national rules.
The arrangement illustrates how a government can formally recognise a venue for public expression while maintaining conditions governing who may speak, what activities are permitted and how gatherings are organised.
Compared with the more spontaneous use of many public squares elsewhere, the Singapore example highlights the administrative side of designated protest spaces: recognition can create an opportunity for public speech, but the terms of that opportunity matter.
Cairo: Tahrir Square
Tahrir Square became a global symbol of mass mobilisation during Egypt’s 2011 uprising, when demonstrators gathered to demand political change and the departure of President Hosni Mubarak.
The square’s importance grew from the scale of the mobilisation, the sustained occupation of public space and the international attention that followed. It showed how a familiar urban location can become the focal point of a national political turning point.
Tahrir also illustrates a crucial distinction: a space can become historically associated with protest without necessarily enjoying a permanent legal status that guarantees unrestricted demonstrations.
Its legacy is tied to a particular period of political struggle, rather than to an unlimited right to assemble there at any time.
Ghanta Ghar at Lal Chowk: Kashmir’s Symbolic Public Square
In Srinagar, Ghanta Ghar at Lal Chowk occupies a distinctive place in Kashmir’s political and civic imagination.
Unlike Hyde Park’s Speakers’ Corner or Jantar Mantar during its period as a designated protest venue, Lal Chowk is not best understood as a formally reserved protest site. Its significance comes from its location, history and repeated use as a setting for political gatherings, public celebrations and expressions of competing political identities.
Lal Chowk is situated in the heart of Srinagar’s commercial and civic life. The surrounding streets connect markets, businesses and important urban routes, making the area one of the city’s most recognisable public spaces.
Its name—literally “Red Square”—has become associated with the political history of Jammu and Kashmir. Over decades, the square has witnessed political rallies, demonstrations, public commemorations and moments of heightened tension. The clock tower has consequently become more than an architectural landmark: it is a visual symbol of Srinagar itself.
A space shaped by Kashmir’s political history
Lal Chowk’s significance cannot be separated from the region’s complex political past. The area has been associated with different political movements, competing visions of Kashmir’s future and moments when public presence at the square carried a strong symbolic message.
For some, the clock tower represents civic identity and the commercial heart of Srinagar. For others, the square has become a stage on which questions of political authority, national identity and Kashmir’s place within India have been expressed.
The same location can therefore carry different meanings for different groups. A flag-raising ceremony, a political rally, a public celebration or a protest may each be interpreted through the region’s distinct historical experiences.
That complexity is part of what makes Lal Chowk a useful comparison with internationally recognised protest spaces. Its role has emerged not from a single designation or law, but from the accumulation of political events and public memory.
Why Ghanta Ghar matters
A symbolic square does not need to be officially labelled a protest site to influence public life. Its importance may lie in the fact that citizens, political organisations and institutions already recognise it as a place where an event will carry meaning beyond the immediate gathering.
For Srinagar, Ghanta Ghar is a reminder that public space is never merely geographical. The location of an event can shape how it is interpreted, who notices it and how it enters the city’s collective memory.
That does not mean every gathering at Lal Chowk is a protest or that all groups enjoy unrestricted access. Public assemblies remain subject to applicable security arrangements and legal restrictions. The distinction is that Lal Chowk’s symbolic role has been built through history and public use rather than through the same kind of formal designation associated with a designated protest ground.
Designated Protest Sites: Recognition or Containment?
The debate over protest spaces often centres on a tension between two legitimate concerns.
On one side, governments and city authorities must manage public safety, prevent violence, maintain access to essential services and protect residents and businesses from avoidable disruption. Large demonstrations can create significant logistical challenges, especially near government buildings, transport hubs and densely populated areas.
On the other side, protest is a form of political participation. Its purpose is often to make an issue visible to those in power and to the public. If a demonstration is moved far from the institutions it seeks to influence, or from places where people and media can readily observe it, the change may affect its practical impact.
Designated sites can serve both purposes.
They can provide predictable locations, established procedures, crowd-management arrangements and a recognised route for obtaining permission. These arrangements may help prevent arbitrary decisions and reduce uncertainty for organisers.
But designation can also become restrictive if access is difficult, conditions are applied inconsistently or alternative venues substantially weaken the visibility of peaceful dissent. A protest site can acknowledge a right while limiting the circumstances in which it can be exercised.
The distinction depends on how the system operates in practice—not merely on whether authorities publish a list of approved venues.
What the Law Says About the Right to Protest in India
The Indian Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms under Article 19(1)(b).
These rights are subject to constitutionally permitted reasonable restrictions. Public gatherings may therefore be regulated for legitimate purposes, including public order, but restrictions must operate within the framework of the law.
The Supreme Court has addressed the balance between public assembly and the rights of other people in several important judgments.
In Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad (1973), the Court considered the regulation of public meetings and made clear that authorities can regulate the use of public streets but cannot exercise their powers arbitrarily to deny the right to hold public meetings.
In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), the Court examined demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and the Boat Club area in Delhi. It recognised the need to balance the rights of protesters with the rights of residents and the wider public, and called for an appropriate regulatory framework.
In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), concerning the Shaheen Bagh road blockade, the Court emphasised that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely in a manner that prevents others from using them.
Taken together, these judgments do not establish an unrestricted right to protest at any chosen location. Nor do they mean that the government can automatically make dissent ineffective simply by moving it away from public view.
The legal question is whether the restrictions are lawful, reasonable and proportionate, and whether the arrangements preserve a meaningful opportunity for peaceful assembly.
The location matters because a right that exists in law must also be capable of being exercised in practice.
Why Proximity to Power Matters
The geography of protest is closely linked to political communication.
A demonstration outside a legislature, government ministry or public institution can deliver a direct visual message: citizens have gathered because they want those responsible for a decision to hear their concerns.
Central locations also tend to offer easier access to national media, public transport and political networks. They can make a local grievance visible to a wider audience and give a movement a recognisable image.
Peripheral locations may offer greater space and fewer disruptions. They may be more appropriate for very large gatherings, especially when organisers expect significant crowd numbers.
But distance can create practical obstacles. Transport costs, travel time, accessibility for older people and persons with disabilities, and the availability of basic facilities can all influence who is able to attend.
A fair system should therefore consider more than the amount of available land. It should consider the needs of protesters, the surrounding community and the public interest in keeping the city functioning.
The key issue is not whether every demonstration must be held beside a seat of power. It is whether the arrangements are designed to manage protest responsibly without unnecessarily diminishing its ability to be heard.
What the World’s Protest Spaces Teach Us
The histories of Hyde Park, Jantar Mantar, Union Square, the National Mall, Taksim Square and Lal Chowk show that protest spaces acquire meaning through a combination of location, law, public use and political memory.
Some become symbols because they are officially recognised for public speaking. Others become important because major movements repeatedly gather there. Still others gain prominence during moments of political upheaval and remain part of the public imagination long after the crowds disperse.
These differences matter. A symbolic square is not necessarily a legally designated protest venue, and a designated site does not automatically guarantee unrestricted access. Yet both can influence the relationship between citizens and authority.
A city’s approach to public assembly communicates something about how it understands dissent. If protest is treated solely as a problem of traffic and crowd control, its democratic purpose can be overlooked. If organisers ignore legitimate safety concerns, the rights of other residents can be undermined.
The challenge is to create arrangements that recognise both realities.
For Delhi, that means evaluating whether the newly designated grounds provide accessible, safe and effective alternatives to Jantar Mantar. For Srinagar, it means understanding how a place such as Lal Chowk acquires political significance through its history and public use. For London and other cities, the lesson is that long-standing traditions of public expression still depend on rules, access and the willingness of authorities to permit peaceful assembly.
Conclusion: A Democracy Needs Space for Dissent
From Hyde Park’s Speakers’ Corner to Jantar Mantar and Srinagar’s Ghanta Ghar, public spaces have played a lasting role in the relationship between citizens and power.
Their importance lies not simply in the crowds they accommodate, but in what they make possible: the transformation of individual grievances into collective demands, the visibility of political disagreement and the opportunity for people without institutional power to enter public debate.
Designated protest sites can help cities manage demonstrations and provide clear procedures for organisers. But their democratic value depends on whether they offer a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
The removal of Jantar Mantar from Delhi’s list of designated protest venues therefore raises a question larger than the future of one historic location. It asks how a democracy should balance security, public convenience and the fundamental value of peaceful dissent.
A city can move demonstrations, impose reasonable conditions and regulate the use of its public spaces. What matters is whether those decisions preserve the substance of the right to protest.
Because a public space is not democratic simply because it is open to everyone. Its deeper significance emerges when people can use it to question authority, demand answers and participate in the decisions that shape their lives.
From London to Delhi to Srinagar, the continuing story of protest spaces is ultimately a story about the visibility of dissent—and about whether citizens can make their voices heard where those voices matter.
