The government’s decision to clear the protest site at Jantar Mantar and implement security restrictions near Parliament is being defended as a necessary step to maintain public order and the sanctity of legislative proceedings. Officials argue that while the right to protest is a cornerstone of democracy, it cannot come at the expense of the safety of government institutions or the daily functioning of the capital city.
By engaging in dialogue with CJP representatives, the government has demonstrated a willingness to hear grievances through established political channels rather than through disruptive street demonstrations. Supporters of this approach emphasize that the meeting between JP Nadda and the CJP delegation proves that the administration is not ignoring the protesters' concerns, but rather insisting that these issues be addressed through formal, orderly discussions.
Furthermore, the deployment of police and the use of internet restrictions are viewed by security analysts as standard protocols when a protest threatens to breach sensitive zones. Preventing a large, potentially volatile crowd from reaching the Parliament complex is seen as a proactive measure to avoid a security breach. This strategy prioritizes the stability of the state and ensures that the legislative branch can continue its work without being intimidated by external pressure.
Ultimately, those backing the government’s response argue that the rule of law must prevail. By managing the protest firmly, the state prevents the escalation of public disorder and ensures that political discourse remains within the bounds of constitutional norms. The focus remains on maintaining a secure environment for all citizens while managing political dissent in a controlled and professional manner.