Latest
Sunday, October 25, 2026
Delhi High Court
Constitutional Law

Delhi High Court Asks Authorities to Decide Fresh Plea for 20 September Jantar Mantar Demonstration Within a Week

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition by Dr Raj Shekhawat after his prayers concerning a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar on 6 September 2026 were conceded to be infructuous. His advocate stated that the refusal had cited the BRICS Summit and sought permission for 20 September instead. The Court directed a fresh application and asked the authorities to decide it as per law within a week (paras 7-11).

Delhi High Court Asks Authorities to Decide Fresh Plea for 20 September Jantar Mantar Demonstration Within a Week

Judgment Intelligence

Disposed Of
Dr Raj Shekhawat @ Shekhawat Rajender Singh Sharvan Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
W.P.(C) 12776/2026
Court
Delhi High Court
Date of Decision
7 September 2026
Bench
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Relevant Acts & Sections
Constitution of India — Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b); Standing Order No. L&O/48/2022
Final Outcome

Writ petition disposed of, with a direction that a fresh application for a demonstration on 20 September 2026 be decided as per law within a week (paras 10-11).

Source Delhi High Court, decided 07.09.2026

Key holdings

  1. The prayers tied to the 6 September 2026 demonstration were concededly infructuous (para 7).
  2. The respondents must consider a fresh application for a demonstration on 20 September 2026 and decide it as per law (paras 9-10).
  3. Any permission granted may carry conditions deemed appropriate as per law (para 9).
  4. The application was to be decided within a week, under intimation to the petitioner (para 10).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

On 27 August 2026 the petitioner applied for permission to hold a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, on 6 September 2026; Respondent No. 3 refused it by a communication of 28 August 2026 (para 3). His writ petition against the Government of NCT of Delhi and others sought quashing of the refusal, permission for 6 September or a fresh decision under Standing Order No. L&O/48/2022 and Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), and alternatively permission for 20 September 2026 (para 3). At the hearing, the petitioner's advocate stated that the refusal had cited the BRICS Summit in Delhi, and asked that the demonstration be allowed on 20 September from 10 AM to 5 PM, subject to conditions (para 8).

Court's Findings

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice, which was accepted on advance notice, and heard both sides, including the Additional Solicitor General for respondents 2 and 3 (paras 4-6). Prayers A, B, C and E, which concerned the 6 September demonstration, were concededly infructuous (para 7). The order makes no finding on the reasons for the earlier refusal; the reference to the BRICS Summit appears only in the statement made for the petitioner (para 8). On the request for 20 September, the Court did not itself grant permission. It directed the respondents to consider the prayer and decide it as per law, including whether to impose conditions "which are deemed appropriate as per law, if permission is granted" (para 9). The petitioner was to file a fresh application before the appropriate authority, which would be decided expeditiously, "within a week from date, under intimation to the petitioner" (para 10). With these directions the petition was disposed of (para 11).

Legal Principle

Where prayers tied to a demonstration date that has passed are conceded to be infructuous, the Court may, instead of granting permission itself, direct the authorities to decide a fresh application for a new date as per law and within a fixed time, leaving permission and any conditions to them (paras 7-10).
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 2 min read
Decided: September 7, 2026 Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
PDF
 Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt