 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. The National Green Tribunal passed a judgement yesterday which bans all forms of protests around the Jantar Mantar area. The primary reason given for this ban is the inconvenience caused to the citizens in the Jantar Mantar area because of these regular protests. So today we have with us Mr. Gautam Navlaka and Mr. Rishabh Bailey to discuss the implications of this judgement. Welcome to NewsClick. So, protests are a democratic, fundamental right. Then how constitutional is it to restrict all forms of protests in Dharnaas to just one area in Deni? Well, that is actually the first question. How is it, how come that our entire right to protest is confined within half a kilometer of Jantar Mantar? That itself is ridiculous. And now if the National Green Tribunal believes that Jantar Mantar is causing noise pollution and it's inconveniencing the residents of Jantar Mantar and that it must be moved to Ramleela ground, then it only means that we will be going to be, I mean all protests and demonstrations would be pushed away to as far away from government ministries and central offices as possible. And there is nothing that says that we won't be thrown out from Ramleela ground on the same basis of noise pollution to somewhere else, to an isolated spot. So it raises the question, I mean does our right to protest against repressive laws or struggles, raise a voice against, in protest against a number of things that keep on happening around us. What does it mean that we can't hold any protests anymore inside Delhi? I actually agree with what Gautam is saying and what that raises is possibly a slightly more philosophical issues. Is a protest a protest if no one witnesses the protest? And we've seen these kind of issues take place in the more, in the hinterland if I could use that word in India. That's Kuran Kulam, this, that and the other where we are actually using our legal system to try and nullify any sort of debate on these issues. So what we're seeing is more and more of these sort of communal or social activities which do not necessarily fit within the paradigm that the government wishes to put forward being moved to the fringes of our settlements, of our towns, which is a disturbing thought in some ways. Though of course it must be said that the government does also have a duty to preserve law and order and ensure that while people are exercising their right to free speech under 19 one, that it's done in a reasonable way so on and so forth. So it's that balancing exercise which the government I think has failed to actually participate in in any way and it takes as is usually the case in our country, it takes rather draconian measures rather than trying to find nuanced answers. I recall that in 1980s after Bharti-Kisan Union's agitation, they gathered near Botlub for several days. It was post that agitation that they decided to ban all protest and demonstrations near Botlub which is isolated and cut off from all commercial, residential and industrial zones. So it was a spot actually going by NGT's own order. It was perfect place to hold demonstrations and protests close to north and south block, not very far from parliament, perfect spot for that. So it was Tikhats, the Bharti-Kisan Union led agitation by Tikhats which first brought in this ban at Botlub and forced people to hold the demonstrations and the police decided that Jantar Mantar is a good enough place to hold it. Now we are being told that Jantar Mantar itself is no longer suitable. Exactly. So on that point it's actually an interesting little technicality in terms of what the court has looked at, that the police clearly has not followed proper procedure in moving protest sites as per their whims. So they have moved it to Botlub, no one knows quite exactly why. From Botlub again they moved it to Jantar Mantar, no one knows why and they were in fact unable to produce the order stating that Jantar Mantar is the designated place of protest. So in that circumstance the NGT I'm not sure had much of a choice in this case because the only place in law which is designated to protest still is the Ramleela grounds. And so that's a sort of basic issue that the government and the police need to grapple with here. But the same it would seem Ramleela ground is also not very far from Old Delhi and the Wall City area. So if the inconvenience caused or the harm caused to the residents of Jantar Mantar is to be an issue, what about thousands? I mean here we are talking about as the NGT order said 60 residents. What about thousands who reside in the Wall Street, Wall City area? By using the same argument they can very well ban demonstrations and protest in Ramleela. It's actually a bigger issue than just protest. I mean what about the people living near the metro lines? What about people living near temples and masjids and I mean we in India love making noise. You go out onto the roads and there is so much noise everywhere. In fact I noticed the judgement specifically mentions that 9 out of the 10 monitoring stations in Delhi actually indicate that there is excessive noise in India. So it's clearly a problem everywhere. It's not localized to Jantar Mantar. And so this case is finding a very small solution to a possibly non-existent problem when you're looking at the bigger issue. Also it should be seen that Jantar Mantar itself holds very strategic importance as it is close to the parliament as you said. Now if we shift the area, if we shift the protests when you're to an area which is so far from all these government offices and so far from the parliament, will smaller protests continue to have any impact? The whole idea of holding protests is not just being close to the central offices but also to reach out to the public. This is also the idea behind protests that you're not being heard. You reach out to the public to create an awareness and at the same time you're close to the central offices so that you can reach out there and hand in your memorandum, try and persuade them to hold talks with you because otherwise that seems to be the only way in which the government response or the administration response. So this would, it's an indirect way of killing protests and demonstrations. Although I must at the same time point to two things which are there in the NGT and which links up with what Rishab said earlier. NGT is right, the noise pollution, prolonged noise pollution is harmful but precisely picking up from where Rishab said, entire Delhi suffers from noise pollution. There are certain areas and especially crowded localities and busties are the worst sufferers of noise pollution. So if NGT is really concerned about the harmful impact of noise pollution, why is it that they have never concerned themselves even so much? The plight of those who live in busties and exposed to prolonged noise pollution. If they had done it, they would have carried greater credibility, which they don't today. Gautam, I actually wanted to ask you something, as someone who's been part of people's social movements for far longer than I've even been around, there's a global movement now to look at the criminalization of protests in public spaces, whether you look at England for example, where you have the increasing use of ASPOS, you look at the US where just recently I think a few months ago they were talking about introducing laws regarding commercial terrorism, protesting in commercial spaces would now be outlawed. Is this a general movement we're seeing around the world and how can you combat that if that's what's happening everywhere? Because this is essentially another version of the development versus social equality paradigm. Very interesting what you say, Rishabh, because if you recall when Occupy Wall Street campaign was going on, one of the ways in which they killed that movement was by invoking public order and public health scare. So public order has become an all-encompassing, you can bring in any part, public health issues can be brought in as they've done it in this particular case of Jantar Mantar, they talk about unhygienic conditions and unsanitary conditions etc, etc which prevail. Yeah, exactly. So yes, you're right, this is a way of killing protests or throttling expression, collective expressions of people. So another interesting thing to note is that even if we just look at the judgment itself, the NGT calls the NGT sites the master plan, Delhi master plan to call that area a residential area. While for all means and purposes it is essentially not a residential area, there are also commercial buildings, banks, government offices, everything. Basically just 60 residents living there. Then why even call it a residential area? What is it that makes Jantar Mantar a residential area when you rightly put there are in fact just 60 residents and everything around it, all the buildings around it are either commercial, guest houses, banks. So I mean what makes it, Delhi metro has its headquarters also I believe there. So what makes it a residential area under the Delhi master plan and how can you invoke that? If you're so concerned about it then then a large parts of Delhi which are not following the Delhi master plan and the zoning plan as part of it. So why are they not concerned about that? One last question. Again the problems faced by the residents of the Jantar Mantar area are still legitimate problems which should not be ignored. But then how do we come to a more reasonable compromise? I would think that there has to be some measure of composure shown by the police and they cannot look to just hide these protests away. The point is that's why protestors flock from all parts of India to come to Jantar Mantar because they've been told that that's where you should go. So clearly the onus is on them to find a place that meets these various criteria. That's true but there is one part of it I mean which is also which flows from the NGT judgment which I think needs to be taken into account. They say the right freedom of expression also incorporates the right to decline to listen. So it's a question for instance on a television you can say hey you have the right to change the channel. But then in a protest or in a person to person you don't necessarily have that facility. So now where does your right to not be annoyed by someone stop? You say it is if for instance I you know I'm shouting into Gautam's ear can he presumably has a right to say hey no this is annoying don't be so loud. But does it mean that I cannot express myself in his presence. Do I have to go out of the room or does he have to go out of the room. That is the sort of interesting question that we were talking about and the Supreme Court has addressed this in a roundabout way without giving a proper answer really to this question. And this links up to the question that you raise where what do we do I mean if Jantar Mantar has to be we have to move protest on Jantar Mantar where should we move. I would like to point out that you know there was a time we could hold our we could gather near Sardar Patel Chowk near Jantar Mantar. We could reach close to the parliament also there was a time we could do it now by confining ourselves to Jantar Mantar just half a kilometer. And turning it into also it's also part of the tourist junk it by the way and tourists are also brought to come to visit Delhi apart from visiting other places. They're also brought to Jantar Mantar to look at the protests you know like the speakers corner in Hyde Park. So we have they're also brought here. I think a better thing would be to return to Botlub to also think in terms of that if it's a large gathering. Yes, you can move it to Ramlila ground. But if there are smaller that they should be permitted to put up the tents somewhere close to Botlub where all these mobile toilets and sanitary facilities could be provided exactly as they've been provided. Jantar Mantar and the NMDC is quite capable of providing it it's they have the they have the expertise. Just on that point there's an interesting part of the judgment which is that they never actually concentrate on the fact that the people who are protesting have no facilities whatsoever. They don't want to go and defecate in the public presumably they don't want to you know live the way they are. So equally there's a burden on the NDMC and the various authorities to ensure that sanitation facilities are provided that's why you have people going out and you know using the bathroom in the public. And it's it's actually it goes goes back to your earlier question also small protesters you know the large political parties or social organizations. They have the capacity and the wherewithal to to to push their way into the city and hold it to hold you know hold the rally wherever they want to and we have seen it happen. We have seen it happen in defiance of law and all all all judgments Supreme Court judgments and orders. What happens to the small protesters? I mean Jantar Mantar for all its shortcomings at least provided them people knew coming from far far corners of this country that there is one place where they could come to hold the protest. And the broader problem also is in some ways whether it's you call it a cynical perspective or not Jantar Mantar is not just symbolic but it's actually a steam valve of some sort. You have groups who can come there actually look to make some change or look to put their cause forward. Does this mean then you're saying just violence this that mean you're going to have if there's no space for discussion what do people do. And so that's also going to create a problem in the future I would think. Which means that probably carry on with Jantar Mantar but also a lot of Botla Ramleela ground and other spots to also be accessible to protesters so that it eases the pressure on Jantar Mantar. Thank you for your time Gautam and Rishabh. Thank you for watching News Square.