In a great relief to political, social and human rights activists in the country who have been alarmed at the shrinking democratic space for protests, especially in the National Capital Delhi, the Supreme Court on July 31, 2025 quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against Telugu actor and film producer Manchu Mohan Babu and his son Manchu Vishnu Vardhan Babu. The FIR was filed against them in connection with a protest rally held in 2019 over non-payment of student fee reimbursements in Andhra Pradesh.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan quashed the FIR, setting aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court's refusal to quash the criminal proceedings against Babu and his son.

"The appellants were exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression and to assemble peacefully. Therefore, no purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution," the court order said.

Only on July 1, 2025, several political parties and progressive and democratic organisations got together. They held a joint dharna organised by the Delhi Committee of CPI(ML) at Jantar Mantar against shrinking space for protest in the capital. The gathering was addressed, among others, by CPI(ML) Delhi spokesperson Comrade Mrigank, Nadita Narain of Democratic Teachers Front (DTF) and ND Pancholi, veteran leader of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL).

There was a time when all protest programmes, dharnas, rallies, and public meetings in Delhi were organised at the sprawling Boat Club lawns, where there was ample breathing space for the aggrieved protesters as well as for the police force and the reporters, including the present writer covering events. One of the famous sit-ins at the India Gate lawns this reporter covered was the farmers' agitation led by farmer leader Mahendra Singh Tikait. While covering the event, I developed a special bond with the farmers' leader, which proved invaluable while covering the recent farmers' agitation against the infamous "reform" acts.

The protest site was shifted from Boat Club to the Jantar Mantar in the late 1980s, possibly in 1988 or 1989. Around that time, there was a massive dharna by the Anganwadi workers demanding survival wages, which this reporter covered for the Indian Express.

Even though Jantar Mantar is the officially designated protest site, nobody is free to protest at the site at will. The Delhi Police, which is responsible for law and order in the capital, insists that a minimum 10-day notice is required to hold any dharna, rally, or meeting at the Jantar Mantar. And throughout the New Delhi district, in which most of the Union government offices and the state government guest houses and offices are located, prohibitory orders are in force permanently, and permission for protest events is given reluctantly after an inordinate delay.

Gradually, peaceful gatherings in industrial areas and other workplaces in Delhi are also being brought under highly restrictive regimes, and permission for protest programmes is outrightly denied. Jantar Mantar itself has been converted into a barricaded, highly monitored zone.

Petitions and memorandums addressed to people in power can no longer be submitted directly by the protesters to the concerned authorities, the Prime Minister, Home Minister, Chief Minister, Commissioner of Police or Municipal Commissioner. The petitions have to be submitted to the security officer on the spot, who will forward them to the concerned authority. The meeting demanded that Section 144 be lifted from the New Delhi District, and people should be free to hold protest programmes with a simple notice to the police without waiting for permissions.

The case against Mohan Babu and his sons arose from a protest held on March 22, 2019, led by Mohan Babu, demanding the release of pending student fee reimbursement funds. The protesters raised slogans against the then government for not granting students' fee reimbursement to Sri Vidyaniketan Educational Institutions, of which Mohan Babu is the Chairman.

The complaint was registered by the then Model Code of Conduct Officer (elections were due to be held at that time), alleging that the protest involved a rally and dharna, which obstructed traffic for four hours. Based on the complaint, the police registered an FIR under Sections 290, 341, 171-F read with 34 of the IPC and Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861.

The judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna observed that none of the offences charged against the appellants are made out. "Therefore, even if the case of the respondent-State is accepted at its face value, it cannot be concluded that the appellants, while conducting the rally and dharna, engaged in any form of obstruction of the road in a manner that led to the offences alleged," Justice Nagarathna concluded.