Jantar Mantar was built to observe the heavens. For three decades, it gave citizens a place to challenge power on earth. Its closure raises an urgent question: can a democracy survive by pushing dissent out of sight? OSWALD PEREIRA reports
A Space That Belongs to the People
There is a disturbing irony in the decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. A place that became synonymous with democratic dissent has been stripped of that role at a moment when citizens are demanding answers from the government over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
After deploying tens of thousands of security personnel to contain the October 10 protest, the authorities have now closed off the very space where public grievances have been voiced for more than three decades.
The sequence raises an uncomfortable question: is the government addressing legitimate administrative concerns, or reacting to the political force of a protest it could not comfortably contain?
The right to peaceful assembly is not a concession granted by the state. It is a fundamental democratic freedom. A government may regulate how and where demonstrations take place, but regulation must not become a convenient instrument for making dissent invisible.
From Astronomy to Democracy
Jantar Mantar was built in 1724 by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II of Jaipur, under the patronage of Mughal emperor Muhammad Shah. Its extraordinary masonry instruments were designed to observe celestial movements, measure time and study the heavens. Today, the observatory remains a protected monument of national importance.
Yet the adjoining road acquired a significance its eighteenth-century builders could scarcely have imagined. It became one of India’s most recognisable spaces for citizens challenging authority.
Its emergence as a protest venue followed the restrictions imposed on mass political gatherings at the Boat Club lawns near India Gate in 1993. The decision followed years of concern over traffic disruption and security, intensified by the enormous farmers’ mobilisation led by Mahendra Singh Tikait in 1988.
Jantar Mantar offered a practical alternative. Its proximity to Parliament and central government offices meant that demonstrators could bring their grievances directly to the attention of the political establishment. The location was accessible, visible and manageable for the authorities.
Over time, it became a democratic landmark in its own right.
The India Against Corruption movement led by Anna Hazare in 2011, the public anger following the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape, the prolonged agitation by Tamil Nadu farmers in 2017 and the wrestlers’ protest in 2023 all demonstrated the power of citizens gathering in a common space.
Each agitation had its own demands, methods and political consequences. Together, they established Jantar Mantar as a place where voices otherwise ignored could command national attention.
More recently, youth-led protests over the NEET-UG examination controversy brought students and concerned citizens onto the streets, demanding accountability over alleged irregularities in a high-stakes examination system.
Jantar Mantar was never merely a stretch of road. It became a public forum where ordinary people could confront the extraordinary power of the state.
The SIR Protests and the Escalation
The latest controversy over Jantar Mantar must be understood against the background of the protests against the Election Commission’s SIR exercise.
Opposition parties and civil society groups have raised concerns about the deletion of millions of names from electoral rolls. The Election Commission’s stated reasons for deletions include voters recorded as absent or untraceable, permanently shifted, deceased, duplicated and other categories. The central democratic question is whether every deletion is accurate and whether eligible citizens have an effective opportunity to establish their entitlement to vote.
For citizens who fear being excluded from electoral rolls, this is not an abstract administrative dispute. The right to vote is the foundation on which representative democracy rests. Errors that deprive eligible citizens of that right can have serious consequences, particularly if they are not corrected before an election.
On October 10, the proposed protest in Delhi was met with an extraordinary security response. Critics cited the deployment of more than 30,000 personnel, extensive preventive detentions, metro closures and restrictions affecting transport into the capital. The scale and precise effects of these measures require independent scrutiny, but the larger concern is clear: public order cannot become a blanket justification for suppressing peaceful assembly.
The opposition subsequently mounted a show of strength, with an 11-party march towards the Supreme Court on October 12, 2026. Organisers claimed that approximately 2.5 lakh people participated. The petitioners demanded an immediate halt to the SIR exercise, an independent review of the millions of deleted names and a return to paper ballots.
These demands and the allegations surrounding the exercise deserve examination on their merits. But the mobilisation itself sent a political message: the controversy over electoral rolls had grown beyond a dispute between opposition parties and the Election Commission. It had become a larger argument about public confidence in the electoral process.
The arrest of Cockroach Janta Party leaders Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, followed by their five-day judicial remand, added another dimension. Opposition leaders Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal criticised the action. Arrests and remands must, of course, be judged on the evidence, applicable law and judicial scrutiny. Yet the use of stringent measures against political protesters inevitably raises questions about proportionality, especially when the underlying activity is peaceful dissent.
When Protesters Become the Story
The treatment of demonstrators has intensified public concern. Images of young people, including women, being dragged by their limbs and bundled into police buses have raised questions about the manner in which crowd control was conducted.
At a press conference organised by Rahul Gandhi, protesters reportedly described alleged police brutality at detention centres. Accounts of minors being beaten also demand serious investigation. Such allegations must be independently verified, and those responsible for any unlawful violence must be held accountable. Youngsters, including girls, were allegedly kicked, including on their private parts by the Delhi Police men and women officers and constables.
The United Nations has also reportedly expressed concern over police brutality, prompting the government to object that the matter falls within India’s domestic jurisdiction.
India is a sovereign nation, and its laws must govern policing and public order. But sovereignty cannot be used to dismiss legitimate scrutiny of human rights. A democracy demonstrates its strength not by rejecting every criticism from outside, but by investigating credible allegations and ensuring that its institutions act within the law.
The police have a difficult responsibility. They must protect public safety, prevent violence and manage crowds. But their authority is not unlimited. Protesters are citizens, and are not enemies of the state. The use of force must be lawful, and yet, proportionate.
When peaceful demonstrators are treated like garbage and threatened simply because they challenge those in power, the distinction between maintaining order and intimidating dissent begins to disappear.
The Government’s Defence—and Its Limits
The government and police have offered an administrative justification for the decision. Jantar Mantar is close to sensitive installations, and large demonstrations can disrupt traffic, commercial activity and access for emergency services. Questions have also been raised over the site’s capacity, sanitation and medical facilities.
These concerns cannot simply be dismissed. A democratic government has a duty to protect public safety and ensure that citizens can exercise their rights without endangering others.
The police have said that the change follows a Supreme Court observation on identifying suitable alternative venues. Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground have been designated as alternatives.
But the critical question is whether these alternatives preserve the spirit of the right to protest. A venue that is technically available but difficult to reach, far from the institutions being addressed or incapable of attracting public attention may weaken the very purpose of a demonstration.
There is a difference between providing protesters with a suitable space and moving them somewhere where they are less likely to be seen or heard. The government must demonstrate that the change is genuinely about safety and facilities, not about distancing dissent from the corridors of power.
Denotification should not become a barrier to peaceful public assembly.
Reclaiming Jantar Mantar
The demand to reclaim Jantar Mantar has now become a symbol of the larger struggle over democratic space. Rahul Gandhi and other opposition leaders have criticised the denotification, while the Cockroach Janta Party has vowed to continue its agitation there.
The significance of this struggle extends beyond one political party, one protest or one controversy over electoral rolls. Governments change, political loyalties shift, and today’s opposition may become tomorrow’s ruling establishment. The freedom to protest must survive all these changes.
The Constitution does not promise citizens that their grievances will always be accepted. It guarantees them the freedom to express those grievances within the framework of the law. Peaceful protest is one of the ways citizens hold institutions accountable when other avenues appear inadequate.
Jantar Mantar’s observatories were built to measure the movements of celestial bodies. Its modern legacy rests on a different kind of observation: the ability of citizens to scrutinise those who wield power.
The government may change the designated protest sites. It may impose reasonable restrictions to protect public safety. But it cannot erase the democratic principle that people have the right to assemble, question and demand answers.
A democracy should not fear a gathering of its citizens. It should fear the day those citizens no longer believe that their voices matter.
Democracy is about ensuring that dissent remains visible, that power remains answerable and that the right to protest is protected in practice, not merely celebrated in principle.
Oswald Pereira, a senior journalist, has written ten books, including The Vijay Revolution: People Power & the Politics of Hope, Beyond Autobiography of a Yogi, The Newsroom Mafia, Chaddi Buddies, The Krishna-Christ Connexion, How to Create Miracles in Our Daily Life and Crime Patrol: The Most Thrilling Stories. Oswald is a disciple of Paramhansa Yogananda and practises Kriya Yoga.
More Stories by Oswald Pereira
Some images are AI generated