The Supreme Court asked the Union of India to take instructions in a writ petition contending that the Jantar Mantar located at New Delhi is not a suitable venue for protests, as they cause inconvenience to residents and disrupt essential services.

Recently, students' protests took place at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, against the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak.
While issuing notices to the Union Government, the NCT of Delhi, and seven major States to place their responses on record, the apex court issued interim directions prohibiting coercive action against students without criminal antecedents, ordering the immediate release of all detained minors, and mandating the preservation of all digital evidence and CCTV footage.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to take instructions on the plea separately.

 The Plea, filed by AOR Aakarshan Aditya, highlighted that Jantar Mantar was designated in an earlier era for limited, identifiable and manageable demonstrations. It was submitted that today, digitally mobilised movements can transform a few hundred persons into several thousand within hours, without a reliable command structure, verified organisers or an enforceable estimate of attendance.

Chief Justice Kant said, "He is raising an issue, and to our mind, it requires consideration. This site, Jantar Mantar, is not the site suitable for... these public protests, peaceful protests, anymore...For the purpose of ingress, egress, or in the case of any medical emergency, exit... for the purpose of providing basic amenities to the persons coming—drinking water, sewage, all facilities to be provided. So he is suggesting some other sites. We are not aware... though whether those sites are suitable or not, that is an issue that has to be decided by..."
In recent years, the examination has faced intense public and legal scrutiny following widespread allegations of paper leaks, grade mark discrepancies, and systemic malpractices. The controversy triggered mass demonstrations by student bodies, medical aspirants, and youth organizations at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi.

Advocate appearing for the petitioner also drew attention to upcoming demonstrations, including planned marches by local unions and political leaders toward Parliament and the Prime Minister's residence, warning of potential public safety risks. In response, the Bench noted that law enforcement authorities were equipped to manage such situations and that the law would take its course if the situation was mishandled.

He submitted, "As per the news reports...the Delhi Auto Union of some sorts has called for a march to the Parliament, that is, Mr Arvind Kejriwal...a few days back held a town hall and then publicly has disclosed that he will also carry out a march to the Prime Minister's place. So the police authorities, in light of all this, so that a situation like 20th July may not be repeated, My Lords, where the residents, commuters, everyone was at risk."
CJ Kant said, "We can't comment on anything about it. They know how to handle the thing...If they mishandle, then we will... the law will take its own course. If they handle properly and appropriately, then people like you will appreciate."
The plea said,
"Its proximity to Parliament, Central Vista, government establishments, diplomatic and commercial areas creates an avoidable convergence of mass mobilisation, national-security sensitivity and restricted physical space."
The Petitioner prayed, "Direct the respondents to discontinue Jantar Mantar as the ordinary designated venue for public protests and demonstrations and to designate Ramlila Maidan, or another sufficiently large and secure ground, as the principal protest venue for the National Capital."
Accordingly, the matter will be listed for further consideration.
Cause Title: Satish Chand Kaushik v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 930/2026]
Tags: