'Being Heard' Now Digital? SC Questions Jantar Mantar Protest Ban
The Supreme Court examines a plea against the Delhi Police's ban on protests at Jantar Mantar, questioning if technology changes how we are 'heard'.
In a significant observation regarding the evolution of democratic expression in the digital age, the Supreme Court of India has suggested that the right of protesters to be "heard" by the state should be viewed through the lens of technology. This remark came during the hearing of a plea challenging the Delhi Police's decision to de-notify Jantar Mantar as a designated site for protests.
The Battle for Jantar Mantar
The legal challenge, filed by advocate Swaty Malik, argues that the de-notification of Jantar Mantar is a violation of the fundamental right to protest. The petitioner emphasized that because Jantar Mantar is located in close proximity to the country's primary administrative establishments, it serves as a crucial space where citizens can ensure their grievances are physically seen and heard by those in power.
While the court agreed to examine the plea, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised an intriguing point about the modern era. Justice Bagchi noted that the concept of being "heard" must now be interpreted from a technological perspective.
"The word ‘heard’ must be used in the perspective of technology also," Justice Bagchi remarked.
The implication of this observation is that in today's hyper-connected world, the physical distance between a protester and a government building may no longer be the deciding factor in whether a message reaches the administration or gains public traction.
Court Issues Notices to Government
Despite the observations on technology, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had presented a case that warrants judicial scrutiny. Justice Bagchi noted the petitioner's point regarding the site's strategic location near the administrative heart of the nation and subsequently issued notices to both the Central government and the Delhi government to provide their responses.
Broader Crackdown: Journalists and Lawyers Under Fire
The Jantar Mantar plea was part of a larger batch of cases stemming from the protests on October 10 and 11 in Delhi. The Court is now dealing with a series of grave allegations regarding police conduct during these demonstrations, including:
- Assault and Harassment: Pleas alleging that journalists and lawyers were targeted and assaulted by security forces.
- Illegal Detentions: Claims of unarmed and peaceful protesters being detained without cause.
- Digital Seizures: A plea argued by senior advocate CU Singh regarding the seizure of electronic devices belonging to journalists.
- Movement Restrictions: Allegations of unwarranted restrictions on the movement of citizens and media personnel.
Preserving Evidence and Legal Orders
To ensure a fair investigation into these allegations, the Supreme Court has issued several directives to law enforcement agencies:
- CCTV Preservation: Authorities have been ordered to preserve all CCTV footage and other digital records related to the protests.
- BNSS Compliance: The Court directed that the order passed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—which allows magistrates to issue prohibitory orders to prevent public danger—be placed on the official record.
- Consolidated Response: The Union government has been asked to file a comprehensive response covering the entire batch of petitions.
The Court had previously reiterated that there should be no illegal detention of peaceful and unarmed individuals, signaling a strict stance on the protection of civil liberties during public demonstrations.