‘No one can occupy a site indefinitely’: Supreme Court on Delhi protests

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made a big remark on designated protest sites, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant said that no individual or organisation could claim the right to occupy a designated protest site indefinitely, stressing that the right to demonstrate must be balanced with the rights of others to use public spaces and earn a livelihood.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Kant along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions linked to the protests against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar in Delhi.

The proceedings covered allegations of police excesses, mass detentions, restrictions during demonstrations and claims of business losses caused by the protests.

The court said designated protest venues must be allotted for specific periods, allowing different groups to exercise their constitutional rights.

“You cannot occupy a site for all times to come. There are other protesters also. Where will farmers or lawyers go? Everyone has a right to protest,” CJI Surya Kant observed.

The bench also made it clear that permission to hold a demonstration at a designated site could not become an open-ended licence to occupy it.

Right to protest versus right to livelihood

The hearing also addressed a plea filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi and other traders’ associations, which alleged that prolonged demonstrations had disrupted commercial activity and affected livelihoods in the national capital.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the traders, told the court that businesses had suffered losses, particularly during the festive season. He urged the bench to consider restrictions on protests and dharnas in Delhi for the next two months, whether held with or without permission.

The traders also raised concerns about the impact of demonstrations around Connaught Place and other commercial areas, where shops and businesses had been affected.

The Supreme Court cautioned against treating the dispute as a choice between the right to protest and the right to trade.

“It is a competing right – your right to trade, business and earn livelihood and someone’s right to protest peacefully,” the bench said.

The court said the right to earn a livelihood extended beyond business profits to include daily-wage workers, small traders and transport operators.

It stressed the need to identify suitable public spaces for demonstrations without preventing others from carrying on their work.

Police action during Delhi protests under scrutiny

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and Delhi Police, told the court that permission for the July 20 demonstration had been granted for only one day.

However, the protesters allegedly occupied the site for 17 days and subsequently called for a march towards Parliament without permission.

Mehta said those organising protests or calling for shutdowns should take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

The petitions before the court also raised allegations of unlawful detentions, excessive police force, internet restrictions, the closure of Metro stations and the use of facial recognition technology to identify protesters.

The bench asked the traders’ associations to implead the organisations that had organised the demonstrations, saying their responses were necessary before the court could decide the competing claims.

It also directed the traders to place an assessment of their financial losses on record.

Jantar Mantar’s status as protest site

The court is also examining Delhi Police’s decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and shift demonstrations to Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground.

The move followed a standoff during the protests organised by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), which had triggered petitions alleging police excesses and restrictions on demonstrators.

The Supreme Court said it would examine whether authorities had independently assessed the suitability of Jantar Mantar as a protest venue.

The bench also said the petitions would be heard category-wise, with lawyers allotted fixed time to present their arguments, so that the wide range of issues could be addressed in an orderly manner.