The Supreme Court has said that the constitutional right to protest does not allow demonstrators to occupy a designated site indefinitely, stressing that prolonged occupation can prevent other groups from exercising the same right. The remarks were made during a hearing on petitions linked to recent protests against the Chief Election Commissioner and have direct implications for how Delhi manages public protest spaces.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said that no group could claim permanent control over a particular location. The Chief Justice asked where farmers, workers, trade unions and homeless people would go if one group continued to occupy a protest site. The court also said that designated protest locations should be allotted for a fixed period.
The bench directed a business organisation seeking restrictions on protests against the Chief Election Commissioner to include the protesting groups and organisations as parties to its petition. The court said it could not decide the matter without hearing the protesters and issued notices seeking responses from the parties. The Chief Justice also asked the petitioners to find out why additional time was not being granted, noting that other groups might have requested permission to protest at the same location.
The court expressed concern about the effect of protests on businesses and, particularly, daily-wage workers. It said the right to protest had to be balanced with the right to conduct business and earn a livelihood. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for business interests, told the bench that trade had suffered losses running into thousands of crores and sought a two-month restriction on protests, especially during the festive season. Traders said that shops in Connaught Place had remained closed and that people living in nearby areas numbered around 50 lakh.
Justice Bagchi questioned whether protesters alone could be held responsible for business losses, pointing out that the government also imposes restrictions on roads. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that shops had been forced to close in some situations and that protests could sometimes turn violent. He argued that demonstrations could not be called without official permission when they affected other people’s livelihoods.
The Delhi Police Commissioner has defended the decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest locations. In an affidavit filed before the court, the commissioner described Jantar Mantar as a public road or common passage and said excluding it was in the public interest. The affidavit identified Ramlila Maidan in central Delhi, CBD Ground in east Delhi and Burari Ground in north-west Delhi as three other locations designated for protests.
The hearing also involved arguments over demonstrations held on 10 October. The police told the court that no one had been arrested or detained during the protest, although some people were taken to a police station after allegedly violating directions issued under Section 163. The court criticised the disruption during the hearing and said future petitions concerning protests and alleged police excesses could be grouped into nine broad categories, with separate hearing dates for each category.
Separately, the Chamber of Trade and Industry has written to the Delhi Police Commissioner seeking a ban on rallies, sit-ins, marches and demonstrations in central and old Delhi until Bhai Dooj on 11 November. The organisation cited disruption around Connaught Place, Jantar Mantar, Patel Chowk and Janpath, and claimed that retail businesses, hotels, restaurants and transport services had suffered losses. The court’s next proceedings will determine how the affected protesters, authorities and business interests respond to the notices.
