Jantar Mantar should never have been designated as a protest site as it is essentially a public road meant for the free movement of people, the Delhi Police told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, defending its decision to denotify the stretch. The decision, it said, was based on recommendations of a committee constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).In a counter affidavit filed in response to a petition challenging the denotification, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar said designating Jantar Mantar as a permanent protest site had been “contrary to public interest since the inception”.He said, “…the decision… was taken by me after due consideration of the relevant factors… and upon consideration of the recommendations of the Committee…”Also Read | Jantar Mantar to the periphery: Will there be a cost for pushing protests out?He added that the decision was not prompted by the SC observations during the October 9 hearing and that the “proposed change in the notified venue for protests” had been under consideration of the police and the Union Government for a considerable period.The government had constituted an MHA committee on August 26 to examine whether Jantar Mantar should continue as a designated protest site and suggest alternatives. Its report was received in September and forwarded to the police commissioner on September 14, well before the SC order, the affidavit said.Kumar said the police had issued guidelines for protests at Jantar Mantar in compliance with a July 23, 2018, SC order. “However, in last six years, the ground situation has changed substantially… The area surrounding Jantar Mantar has witnessed increasing concerns relating to public order as well as public safety, traffic regulation, crowd management, law and order, protection of sensitive and vital installations, and the convenience of residents and commercial establishments.”Also Read | CJP protest | A city sealed off: Empty roads, barricades and detained protestersThe proximity of the new Parliament complex had also heightened the need to regulate activities in the area, he added.Story continues below this ad“Jantar Mantar is not a ‘site’ as understood but is, in fact, a public road,” Kumar said, adding that it continued to be used as a road, “though with difficulty”.According to the affidavit, Jantar Mantar witnesses more than 1,300 protests and demonstrations annually. “Access of emergency services like fire brigades, ambulances etc invariably get constrained not only for the venue, but also for the neighbourhood… resulting in public order issues.”Citing the July 20 protests orgainsed by the CJP, Kumar said the number of protesters had far exceeded the venue’s capacity. “Such instances are not solitary, which creates the constant fear of a stampede once the crowd starts gathering around Jantar Mantar area… which leads to curbing of activities in these areas, affecting the day-to-day lives of people, daily livelihood… and right to move freely…”He contended that the “de-notification… is justified and warranted” given the presence of embassies, government offices, hospitals, houses and commercial establishments within 3-4 km of Jantar Mantar.Story continues below this adAlso Read | Lockdown, crackdown: People on roads bundled into buses, taken away by police; Delhi won’t be held hostage, says CMKumar said the MHA committee had “unanimously recommended that Jantar Mantar Road was no longer a suitable venue for protests and demonstrations”, citing public safety, traffic management, emergency response, protection of vital installations and the convenience of residents.The police said the SC’s October 9 order in M A Baby v union of India, calling for alternative protest sites with basic amenities, came after the committee had submitted its report. Three alternative sites have since been identified and designated.The affidavit added that “in the era of digital technology and widespread use of social media, the geographical proximity of a protest site to the seat of the Government has ceased to be relevant and has become redundant”.“The right to protest is required to be balanced by the statutory authorities with the rights of non-protesting citizens and other members of the public, including their right to earn their livelihood, carry on their business and other activities peacefully, as well as their right to move freely within the capital city of India,” Kumar said. The petitioners could not claim a vested right to insist on a particular venue, he added.Detention of protestersStory continues below this adIn a separate affidavit, Delhi Police explained that orders under Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were promulgated given the sensitivity of the New Delhi district, which includes Parliament, Rashtrapati Bhawan, India Gate and Jantar Mantar, and the July protests. The orders were intended to prevent traffic obstruction, danger to human life and disturbance of public tranquillity.Also Read | Over 100 detained after protests against CEC, Opp demands release of Dipke, BoraSection 163 of BNSS empowers a magistrate to issue an order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger.On the detention of political leaders during the October 10 protests, the police said Mamata Banerjee, Derek O’Brien, Dola Sen, Pratima Mondal and others had violated the directions issued under Section 163. They were taken from South Avenue to Dwarka North Police Station around 2 pm.The leaders were treated with dignity and offered tea, coffee and food, the police said. Banerjee, Sen and Mondal were informed at 5.50 pm that they could leave but chose to wait for the others. Derek O’Brien, Samirul Islam and Mohammed Nadimul Haque were permitted to leave at 6.05 pm. All six left in their respective cars.