India's protest sites: A walk through regulations in major cities

On any given day, a short walk through central Bengaluru reveals a peculiar sight: clusters of people holding placards, standing patiently behind metal barriers, their voices occasionally rising in unison. This is Freedom Park, the city's designated protest zone. It is one of several such sites across India, where the right to dissent is physically fenced in by rules.

The idea is straightforward. Designate a space, set the rules, and let citizens voice their grievances without disrupting the city's flow. But the reality, as a walk through these sites shows, is far more complex. The regulations vary wildly from city to city, and the experience of protesting is shaped as much by municipal bylaws as by the cause itself.

The designated zones

In Delhi, the iconic Jantar Mantar has historically served as the go-to protest spot. It is a stone's throw from Parliament, a location that lends symbolic weight to any demonstration. But its use is now governed by a 2021 order that prohibits indefinite sit-ins. Protesters are allowed to gather for a limited period, typically a few days, after which they must vacate. The rule aims to prevent the area from turning into a permanent camp, a lesson learned from the prolonged anti-CAA protests that stretched for months.

Mumbai's Azad Maidan, a vast open ground in the heart of the city, is another such site. Here, the regulations are less about time limits and more about logistics. Organisers must obtain prior permission from the police, who specify the exact area within the maidan that can be used. The ground is also a public park, so there are restrictions on the use of loudspeakers and on the hours of operation. A protest after 10 pm is technically a violation.

Bengaluru's Freedom Park, which was once a central jail, is perhaps the most formalised of the three. The city's police have issued a detailed set of guidelines. Protesters must register their intention 48 hours in advance, and the gathering cannot exceed a few hundred people. The use of drums, fire, or any form of combustion is banned. Food stalls, however, are permitted, a concession that many activists say keeps the atmosphere relatively peaceful.

What the rules actually say

Across these sites, common threads emerge. Most regulations stipulate a minimum distance from government buildings, a cap on noise levels, and a prohibition on blocking public thoroughfares. The legal basis for these restrictions is often Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers district magistrates to issue orders in urgent cases of nuisance or danger. In protest contexts, it is frequently invoked to limit assembly sizes or impose curfews.

But the interpretation of these rules is where friction arises. For instance, police in Bengaluru have on occasion denied permission for protests on the grounds that the proposed gathering could escalate into a law-and-order problem. This discretionary power has been challenged in court multiple times. The Karnataka High Court has in recent years held that the police cannot act as a censor, and that permission should be granted unless there is a clear and present danger.

Similarly, in Delhi, the time limit on Jantar Mantar protests has been criticised by civil liberties groups. They argue that a two-day window is insufficient for sustained political engagement, and that the rule effectively forces protesters to either end their agitation or move to an unauthorised location. The police counter that the limit is necessary to ensure the site remains accessible to all groups, not just those with the stamina for a long siege.

The practical realities

What is often missing from the official rulebooks is the human dimension. A walk through any protest site reveals that the regulations are applied unevenly. Some groups, particularly those with political connections, seem to navigate the process with ease. Others, often representing marginalised communities, face greater scrutiny. Activists in Bengaluru point out that while the rules are ostensibly neutral, the approval process can be opaque, with no clear criteria for why one application is accepted and another is not.

There is also the question of enforcement. In practice, police often tolerate minor deviations from the rules, especially for spontaneous demonstrations that flare up in response to a sudden event. The 2020 farmers' protests, for example, began at the borders of Delhi, outside any designated zone, and continued for over a year. The authorities chose not to evict the protesters, despite the clear violation of the rules, presumably for fear of inflaming the situation further.

What lies ahead

The legal landscape is evolving. The Supreme Court has, in several judgments, reiterated that the right to protest is a fundamental right, but it has also upheld the need for reasonable restrictions. The balance, it seems, will continue to be struck on a case-by-case basis.

For now, the designated protest sites remain a peculiar feature of urban India. They are spaces where democracy is exercised, but within parameters set by the state. The next time you walk past Freedom Park or Jantar Mantar, take a moment to read the notice boards. They tell a story not just of the day's agitation, but of the long, ongoing negotiation between order and dissent.