The Delhi High Court on Tuesday, in the petition filed by the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) challenging the Delhi Police’s decision to deny permission for a protest at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar, issued notice on limited prayers challenging the manner of the permission denial.

When the matter came up before the bench of Justice Amit Mahajan, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the plea had become infructuous in view of the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site.

However, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for IYC President Uday Bhanu Chib, submitted that he would amend the prayers in the writ petition to reflect the changed circumstances.

He argued that the challenge was not limited to the denial of permission to protest but also concerned the alleged curbing of the petitioner's rights and the arbitrary manner in which permission had been denied.

To this, ASG Sharma said that the remaining prayers stemmed from the principal prayer seeking permission to hold the protest. He argued that since the main prayer could no longer be pressed, the petition could not be sustained.

However, Senior Advocate Luthra clarified that he was no longer pressing prayers (a) and (b) of the writ petition, which concerned permission to protest at Jantar Mantar. However, he sought to pursue the remaining prayers challenging the manner in which permission had been denied.

Court issued notice on prayers (c), (d) and (f) and posted the matter for further hearing on November 17.

Through prayers (c), (d) and (f), Chib has challenged the imposition of blanket restrictions on peaceful protests without individual assessment, sought a fresh and reasoned reconsideration of IYC’s request after examining whether concerns regarding security, traffic and public order could be addressed through reasonable conditions, and contested the treatment of the 10-day advance notice requirement as an absolute bar to considering applications filed within a shorter period.

The proposed protest sought to demand Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The allegations form part of a wider political dispute over the revision exercise and its implications for voters’ names on electoral rolls.

Why Was Permission Denied?

IYC had sought permission to hold a peaceful demonstration involving approximately 100 to 150 people between October 1 and October 25.

On October 1, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (New Delhi) rejected the request, citing law-and-order concerns in the New Delhi district and traffic considerations.

The police communication reportedly also referred to guidelines restricting dharnas or demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and the Central Vista area to one continuous day. It cited intelligence inputs about possible mass gatherings and the potential impact on security and traffic management.

What Has IYC Argued?

IYC president Uday Bhanu Chib has challenged the rejection, arguing that the police cannot use their power to regulate peaceful assemblies to effectively prohibit them.

The petition contends that the decision was taken without an individualised and proportionate assessment of the proposed gathering. It invokes Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, concerning equality before the law, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to assemble peacefully without arms.

The organisation has also stated that it is willing to comply with lawful conditions relating to security, traffic management, discipline and public order.

Previous Proceedings

The high court had declined to grant an urgent hearing on the plea on October 9, listing it for October 12. The matter was subsequently taken up on Monday, when the lawyers sought an early hearing but the court directed that it be heard on Tuesday.

Case Title: Uday Bhanu Chib vs UOI and Others

Hearing Date: October 13, 2026

Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan

Tags: