Cribbing Will Not Help CJP: Pick a Site and Comply
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2026-10-13 05:47:59
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
The Cockroach Janata Party began as a movement of educated young people, and it earned attention by articulating its vision more freshly than most established politicians. On 12 October, however, it showed a flash of the frustration that movements often struggle to hide.
Thirty minutes after Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka submitted a letter to Delhi Police seeking fresh dates to protest at Jantar Mantar, they learnt that the site had been denotified. The administration had named three new protest sites in its place: Ramlila Maidan in central Delhi, Burari ground in north Delhi and CBD ground in east Delhi.
Ranka's reaction on social media was: "Why not designate Mt Everest as the designated protest site? Thirty minutes after we went to Delhi Police asking for a date when we can go to Jantar Mantar, it was denotified." This was cribbing, nothing more. As an argument, it falls short for two reasons.
First, choosing and notifying protest sites is the administration's prerogative, and the Supreme Court has recognised both sides of the balance involved. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018), it set aside the NGT's blanket ban on protests at Jantar Mantar and directed that protests be regulated, not prohibited. In Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), the Shaheen Bagh case, it held that the right to protest is not absolute, that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely, and that protests belong in designated areas. Read together, the two judgments say that the state cannot ban protest outright and that protesters cannot claim any location they please.
The distinction from MKSS is worth spelling out, because Ramlila Maidan, the very place the NGT tried to push protesters to, is now one of the notified sites. The NGT order was a total ban that left a single forced alternative. The administration has now notified three sites in three parts of the city. Relocating protest to designated grounds is regulation, not prohibition.
Second, notifications of this kind are not drafted, vetted and issued in half an hour. If anything, the timing suggests the decision was already in the pipeline, which means CJP's letter did not cause it. CJP flatters itself if it thinks otherwise. That does leave a fair question the administration should answer: why was there no advance notice to prospective protesters?
Critics will also say the new sites are far from the seat of power and so blunt the purpose of a protest. There is something in this. But Jantar Mantar's proximity to Parliament and the government's offices was precisely what made it so disruptive for the general public. In an editorial on 10 October, IndiaCommentary had argued as much, suggesting that the government should notify new sites without delay. It has done so, and it deserves credit.
The way forward is simple. Instead of cribbing, CJP should pick one of the three notified sites, submit a fresh letter and comply with the law. A movement that wants to be taken seriously as an alternative to established politicians should show it can work within the rules it expects others to follow. Cribbing gets attention, but sustaining a movement takes patient compliance.
