Once again, Azad Maidan in Mumbai has turned into a battleground for Maratha reservation. On Friday, Maratha reservation activist Manoj Jarange Patil began his protest at Azad Maidan, after he was granted permission by the Mumbai police.The police permission came with the caveat that the number of protesters would be limited to 5,000 and confined to a designated area in Azad Maidan. This was after the Bombay High Court ruled on Tuesday that Patil and his supporters would not stage any protest at the spot until they sought permission from the authorities.Stating that democracy and dissent go hand in hand and that demonstrations should be held in designated places alone, the court also raised concerns over protests hampering the ‘tempo of life in the city of Mumbai’, citing the ongoing Ganesh Chaturthi festivities.Now that Azad Maidan has become a focal point for reservation protests and Maharashtra politics ahead of the local body elections, the question arises as to why Azad Maidan is the designated protest site in Mumbai.A petition and Bombay HC’s interventionIn 1997, the Nariman Point Churchgate Citizens’ Association and other resident associations in South Mumbai approached the Bombay High Court, claiming that protests held in the area caused them disturbance.They claimed that there was constant ‘noise pollution’ due to slogan shouting along the arterial routes leading up to Kala Ghoda and Churchgate, where several morchas (rallies) would gather, presenting their demands to the state government.The petition claimed that this affected residents, college students, office workers who travelled to Nariman Point every day, and others. At that time, the court issued an interim order stating that all protests and morchas would terminate at Azad Maidan, a ground close to the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus and the headquarters of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC).Story continues below this adSince then, on the basis of the interim order, protests held in South Mumbai were required to be within the designated space at Azad Maidan. The organisers of the protests, too, require permission from the Mumbai police. Unlike earlier, when protesters would demonstrate right up to Vidhan Sabha or Mantralaya, the state secretariat, this has not been permitted since.The Mumbai police also continually extend a public order under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (replaced with Section 163 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), prohibiting gatherings, citing ‘disturbance of public tranquillity’.Furthermore, while the proceedings were ongoing in the 1997 petition, the state stated in 2011 that a committee had been set up, comprising the additional chief secretary (home), the police commissioner, and the BMC commissioner, which would investigate the issue and develop a policy. In 2016, the court was informed that the committee had not met even once; as a result, the court directed the government to formulate a policy soon.The petitioners had sought that facilities should be provided at the ground for protests, so that traffic and security are regulated, ‘in such a way that others are not inconvenienced’.Story continues below this adIn 2020, the high court was again informed that the state has undertaken to frame rules and regulations on public meetings. The court had again, in March 2025, taken up the case for hearing, and directed that the rules be put in place soon, stating that 28 years had passed since the petition was filed.The state had then informed the court that the Public Meetings, Agitations and Processions Rules, 2025, would be notified, earmarking Azad Maidan as the designated area for conducting dharnas, agitations, pickets, meetings, processions, hunger strikes, or any other forms of protest.Permission for Manoj Jarange Patil’s protestOn Tuesday, the Bombay High Court referred to these Rules for the protest called by Manoj Jarange Patil, and said that while democracy and dissent go hand in hand, ‘but demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone, which are identified for such a protest’.It also cited the Supreme Court judgment in the Amit Sahni vs Commissioner of Police case, in connection with the protests at Shaheen Baug in Delhi, by those opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2020. The Supreme Court had then stated that occupying public ways can cause inconvenience to commuters and is not acceptable.Story continues below this adActivists and protest groups often cite this restriction as a means to keep protesters away from government offices and out of the public eye. Authorities, however, cite that the allocation of a designated spot is necessary to avoid rasta rokos or road blockades, which could cause public order issues.