Delhi HC Records Police Assurance of Legal Measures Ahead of CJP’s Proposed Connaught Place Protest

New Delhi: The Delhi Police on Thursday assured the Delhi High Court that all possible measures under law would be taken to address concerns surrounding the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) proposed protest at Connaught Place on Friday, after a street vendor approached the court, apprehending disruption to business activities in the area.

A bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma recorded the assurance while hearing a plea filed by Anil Kumar Gupta, a licensed street vendor at Palika Bazar, seeking intervention over the proposed gathering at Central Park, Connaught Place.

Senior Advocate Sacchin Puri, appearing for the petitioner, urged the court to issue directions concerning the proposed protest, arguing that Central Park was not a designated protest venue. He also sought action in relation to CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke, who has been named as a respondent in the petition.

During the hearing, Puri informed the bench that two petitions were involved in the matter. The court observed that one of them was not listed on its board.

The bench asked the petitioner’s counsel about the remedy available if directions issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court were not being followed.

“If these judgments are not being followed, what is the remedy? These directions are by this court or the apex court?” the bench asked.

Puri submitted that the petitioner was seeking enforcement of directions issued by the Supreme Court, besides specific relief concerning the protest proposed for October 16 at Connaught Place.

He argued that the proposed gathering was being called at a location that was not a designated protest site and urged the court to ensure that it did not take place.

“Dussehra is about to come, the illegal protest has been called. We are seeking directions that this protest shall not take place,” Puri submitted.

The bench then questioned why the petitioner apprehended that the authorities would not take appropriate action.

Addressing Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, who appeared for the authorities, the court asked why such apprehensions had arisen.

Sharma submitted that the concern appeared to be that incidents of alleged anarchy and lawlessness witnessed earlier could be repeated on October 16. He referred to the potential impact on traders in Delhi, saying the apprehension appeared to concern around 15 lakh traders.

“If some people think that they can press the nerve of Delhi and create anarchy,” Sharma submitted while addressing the concerns raised in the matter.

Puri reiterated that the CJP and its founder were parties to the petition and sought a specific direction concerning Dipke.

“Connaught Place is the heart of Delhi,” he submitted, emphasising the potential impact of the proposed gathering on businesses in the area.

Referring to the losses allegedly suffered by traders during the previous weekend, Puri told the bench, “The last weekend we completely lost; if this weekend also goes, we are completely lost.”

The bench subsequently asked the ASG about the action taken in relation to respondent number six, referring to Dipke, as the petitioner’s counsel expressed concern over the possibility of further disruption to business activities.

In its order, the bench recorded the petitioner’s apprehension that Dipke’s conduct was likely to disturb business activities in the Connaught Place area. The court was also informed that Dipke had already been served with the petition through email.

The order recorded the assurance given by the ASG on behalf of the other respondents that the authorities had already taken steps to control and regulate Dipke’s activities and would take all possible measures under the law.

The bench took the assurance on record and posted the matter for further consideration on November 3.

During the hearing, Sharma also raised the issue of Dipke’s associates, suggesting that any consideration of restrictions concerning the CJP founder should take into account the possibility of his associates acting independently.

The court’s order records the authorities’ assurance to address the petitioner’s apprehensions. It does not expressly prohibit the proposed protest.

The petition has been filed by Gupta, who has been selling readymade garments at Palika Bazar for nearly three decades and holds a certificate of vending issued by the New Delhi Municipal Council.

He has contended that prolonged demonstrations, road blockades and traffic diversions in central Delhi adversely affect street vendors, shopkeepers, small traders and daily-wage earners who depend on the area for their livelihood.

The plea refers to a social media call issued on October 14 by CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke for a gathering at Central Park under the banner “Lehra Do Tiranga”, scheduled for 5 pm on October 16.

The petitioner argues that Central Park is not among the designated protest venues identified in the Delhi Police order dated October 11, 2026, which de-notified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and identified Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi as venues for demonstrations.

The petition relies on the Supreme Court judgments in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) and Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), contending that protests must be regulated and public roads cannot be obstructed indefinitely.

It also refers to the Delhi Police Standing Order dated November 22, 2018, which prescribed conditions governing demonstrations at Jantar Mantar, including restrictions on the number of participants, timings, marches and obstruction of traffic.

According to the petition, earlier demonstrations and resulting traffic restrictions caused customers to stop visiting Connaught Place and Palika Bazar, affecting the earnings of vendors and other businesses. Gupta has alleged that an agitation on or around July 20, 2026, spilled beyond the designated area, bringing roads around Jantar Mantar and Parliament Street to a standstill.

Apart from seeking intervention concerning the proposed gathering, the petitioner has sought directions for a traffic and pedestrian access plan covering Jantar Mantar, Parliament Street, Connaught Place and adjoining roads. He has also sought safeguards against unnecessary barricading and traffic diversions.

The plea further seeks protection for street vendors against eviction or seizure of goods except in accordance with the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014.

Gupta has maintained that the petition is not intended to curtail the right to peaceful protest but seeks enforcement of existing legal requirements so that demonstrations do not deprive other citizens of access to public spaces or their means of livelihood.

The petition names the Union of India, the Delhi government, the Delhi Police Commissioner, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the New Delhi Municipal Council and the CJP as respondents.