NEW DELHI, Oct 12 (Agencies): Ramlila Maidan, newly designated as one of the capital’s three protest sites, is already booked for most of the next two-and-a-half months, leaving just three days available for reservations this year.
Additionally, while a small section of the ground can be used for protests free of charge, booking the larger venue, which spans 12 acres and can accommodate up to 50,000 people, involves a daily fee and a refundable security deposit, a TOI report stated.
Revealing that only December 29, 30 and 31 as the availiable dates, an official quoted by PTI said, “The booking rate for the ground is Rs 50,000 per day, plus a Rs 55,000 security deposit that is refundable. The initial outlay including taxes comes to Rs 1.21 lakh for a day’s booking.” However, officials clarified that a small portion of the ground, with space for around 150 people, remains available for protests and gatherings free of charge.
Permission to use the larger ground must be obtained from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s horticulture department, which processes bookings after applicants secure a no-objection certificate from Delhi Police.
The arrangement has drawn criticism from opposition leaders and protesters, who argue that the limited availability and high booking costs could make demonstrations difficult to organise. AAP Delhi president Saurabh Bharadwaj questioned the decision, pointing to events already scheduled at the venue. Govt. played another fraud with its citizens. The Ramleela Maidan is occupied with two Ramleelas,” Bharadwaj wrote on X.
“How can one hold a protest here? Do they want to create chaos?” he asked. Protesters also highlighted the financial burden, noting that demonstrations at Jantar Mantar did not require comparable payments.
Civic officials, however, pointed to the revenue implications of allowing unrestricted use of the ground. “If given up for protest without any fees, the civic body will stand to lose at least Rs 50,000 plus per day,” an official said, quoted by PTI.
The ground is frequently reserved for public events and religious festivities, particularly around Dussehra and Diwali, contributing to the shortage of available dates.
Apart from booking constraints, the venue presents traffic-management challenges. Located in a busy commercial area near three hospitals and municipal offices, Ramlila Maidan has witnessed major congestion during political rallies and other large gatherings.
Officials said police often have to introduce one-way traffic restrictions on Asaf Ali Road and divert vehicles towards Jawaharlal Nehru Marg. A BJP rally in 2014 reportedly caused traffic jams extending nearly four kilometres to ITO, despite being held on a Sunday.
The venue has been central to Delhi’s political history for decades. Once a pond, the site was filled and levelled around 1930 to accommodate Ramlila performances, which began there in 1932. It subsequently hosted major political gatherings addressed by leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Jayaprakash Narayan and Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
On June 25, 1975, the day the Emergency was declared, Jayaprakash Narayan and Vajpayee addressed a rally at the ground. Relatively recently, Arvind Kejriwal took oath as Delhi chief minister there in 2013.
The controversy follows an standing order issued by Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, which removed Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues and identified Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi as the three new locations for demonstrations. Police said a detailed, revised standard operating procedure for protests at these sites would be issued separately.
SC favours balanced approach over blanket firecracker ban ahead of Diwali
New Delhi, Oct 12 (IANS): The Supreme Court on Monday said that public awareness and voluntary participation would be more effective in addressing the problem of firecracker-induced air pollution in Delhi-NCR than imposing restrictive orders that could be difficult to enforce on the ground.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said the apex court would not hurt religious sentiments but stressed the need for a balanced and practical approach to minimise the harmful effects of firecrackers.
“We will not hurt religious sentiments, but at the same time, people should themselves come forward. The whole exercise should involve a balancing approach. If we adopt this balanced approach, society itself becomes awakened, and people come forward,” the CJI Kant-led Bench observed.
The Supreme Court was hearing suo motu proceedings concerning air pollution in Delhi-NCR, including the use of firecrackers, crop residue burning and solid waste management.
The CJI Kant-led Bench cautioned against passing restrictive orders without ensuring that they could be effectively implemented, observing that such directions were often perceived as coercive action.
“The only problem, and we are repeating this, is that the moment you pass an order, a restrictive order, people take it as if it is a kind of coercive action. It is a human reaction. We should be very practical and pragmatic in these things,” the apex court said.
It further said that sufficient time was available to make an earnest appeal to people to celebrate Diwali while limiting the bursting of firecrackers to specified hours, as had been done previously.
During the hearing, senior advocate Aparajita Singh, assisting the top court as amicus curiae, argued that firecrackers were not an essential part of religious observance and drew attention to their adverse impact on public health, particularly among children, elderly persons and those suffering from illnesses.
“Because fireworks are not part of religion; worship is! Firecrackers are not. Gods would be aghast if they knew that children are suffering and getting sick in their name,” she submitted.
Singh urged the apex court to refer the issue to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM), which is responsible for coordinating air pollution control measures in Delhi-NCR, so that the available scientific material and medical concerns could be examined.
She also expressed reservations about restricting the use of firecrackers to one or two hours, contending that such limitations might not be effectively implemented. However, the Supreme Court stressed the importance of making citizens aware of the health hazards associated with firecrackers and encouraging them to voluntarily adopt less polluting practices.
“We have to make people wiser, bring awareness and tell them which firecrackers are harmful and which are less harmful. We should promote that kind of culture and persuade people to return to our original culture, where there were only sparklers and the lighting of lamps,” the CJI Kant-led Bench said.
It also suggested publishing educational material explaining the harmful consequences of firecracker use and encouraging people to minimise bursting and restrict it to particular hours to prevent air and noise pollution.
It further observed that authorities could consider regulating the availability of firecrackers in the market, allowing less harmful varieties while restricting the sale of those that cause greater pollution.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 15.
Earlier, on September 30, the Supreme Court ruled out a complete ban on firecrackers ahead of Diwali while indicating that their unrestricted use throughout the day would also not be permitted.
A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale had said that the top court needed to balance religious sentiments associated with Diwali against concerns over air pollution and its impact on children, elderly persons and those suffering from illnesses. The apex court had also considered a proposal to permit specified categories of next-generation joint green crackers, subject to safeguards relating to their manufacture, noise levels, number and size of shells, and intervals between successive bursts. It had sought further assessment by expert bodies on barium-based firecrackers.