SC Says Protest Sites Cannot Be Occupied Indefinitely

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the right to protest does not allow groups to occupy a designated site indefinitely, warning that a prolonged occupation could prevent others from exercising the same right.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, made the observation while hearing petitions linked to recent protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The cases include traders’ pleas over business losses and petitions alleging police excesses, unlawful detentions and restrictions during the demonstrations.

“You can’t occupy a site for all times. Where will farmers, journalists, etc. go? Everyone has a right to protest. A designated site must be given for a designated period,” the CJI said. The bench said protest venues should be allotted for specific periods so farmers, workers, trade unions, homeless people and other groups could also use them.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that permission for a protest in July had been granted for one day, but protesters occupied the Jantar Mantar site for longer.

The bench said the right to protest must be balanced with the right to conduct business and earn a livelihood, particularly for daily-wage workers. Appearing for traders, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said businesses had suffered losses running into thousands of crores and sought a two-month restriction on protests, especially during the festive season. Traders’ counsel said around 50 lakh people lived near the protest site and claimed shops in areas such as Connaught Place had shut, with little commercial activity.

The court issued notice on a petition filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi seeking a halt to protests during the festive period. It asked the traders’ associations to add the organisers of the anti-CEC protests as parties to the case, saying it could not fully consider their grievances otherwise.

Other petitioners alleged unlawful detentions, custodial assault, barricading and excessive police action during the October protests. Lawyers’ bodies raised concerns about advocates being detained, internet disruptions and restricted access to courts and chambers. The court also took up petitions concerning alleged assaults, device seizures and police action against journalists, including contempt proceedings.

The bench issued notice on a separate petition challenging the legal basis for facial-recognition surveillance and questioning how collected data is used and secured. It said it would hear after Diwali a plea alleging harassment of women journalists and a request for a separate investigative committee.

The court divided the connected petitions into nine categories and asked lawyers to propose the order and time required for arguments. It said fresh writ petitions would generally not be entertained unless an Advocate-on-Record certified that they raised a new and distinct issue.

Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, N. Hariharan, Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, C.U. Singh and P.V. Dinesh appeared for petitioners challenging police action and restrictions. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani represented a petitioner seeking a standard operating procedure to regulate foreigners’ participation in protests.