'No One Can Occupy Site Indefinitely': SC Seeks Centre's Reply on Plea to Halt Delhi Protests

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, observed that no individual or organisation can occupy a designated protest site indefinitely, stressing that the right to protest must be balanced with the right to trade and earn a livelihood. The remarks came while the top court was hearing petitions related to the ongoing protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and a plea filed by traders alleging significant business losses due to the demonstrations.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that designated protest sites must be made available to different groups for specific periods, rather than allowing one organisation to occupy them indefinitely.

"You can't occupy a site all the time. Where will farmers, journalists go? Everyone has the right to protest. Designated time must be given for a designated period," the Chief Justice observed.

The court emphasised that the right to protest is constitutionally recognised, but it cannot come at the cost of preventing other citizens from exercising their rights. It also indicated that the conditions attached to permission for holding protests must clearly specify the duration and terms of occupation.

SC Hears Traders' Plea Over Business Losses

The observations came during the hearing of a petition filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi and other traders' organisations, which alleged that the prolonged protests at Ramlila Maidan had adversely affected commercial activities in the surrounding areas, particularly during the festive season.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the traders, told the bench that the demonstrations had caused substantial financial losses to businesses. He claimed that nearly 50 lakh people lived in areas surrounding the protest site and that shops in commercial centres, including Connaught Place, had remained shut, severely affecting business activity.

The traders argued that the protests, traffic restrictions and police barricading had disrupted access to markets and commercial establishments, affecting retailers, wholesalers, small shopkeepers and daily-wage workers.

Rohatgi urged the court to consider restrictions on protests and dharnas in Delhi for the next two months, particularly in view of the ongoing festive season. The petition sought relief against the continued occupation of the protest site and called for measures to protect traders' right to livelihood.

The bench, however, stressed that the matter involved competing constitutional rights - the right to protest peacefully and the right to carry on trade and business. It observed that the interests of daily-wage workers and small traders also needed to be considered while determining the impact of demonstrations on commercial activity.

The court asked the traders' organisations to implead the groups and organisations conducting the anti-CEC protests as parties to their petition, observing that their position would also have to be heard before the grievances could be adjudicated.

The Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre, Delhi Government, Delhi Police and other respondents, seeking their replies within a week on the traders' plea.

Other Delhi Protest-Related Issues Before SC

The bench was also hearing a batch of petitions concerning various issues arising from the protests, including allegations of mass detentions, police excesses, restrictions on movement, the closure of Metro stations and internet shutdowns.

The proceedings also covered concerns over the Delhi Police's decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and the subsequent arrangements for demonstrations at alternative locations.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that permission for an earlier demonstration had been granted for only one day, but the protesters had allegedly occupied the site for a longer period. He also raised concerns over demonstrations being conducted beyond the period for which permission had been granted.

The court indicated that the issue of designated protest venues and the duration of their occupation required consideration, reiterating that public spaces must remain accessible to other groups seeking to exercise their right to protest.

Meanwhile, the issue of alleged assaults on women journalists during the Delhi protests is scheduled to be heard separately on November 23. During the proceedings, senior advocate Indira Jaising raised concerns over allegations of sexual violence and sought clarity on the proposed investigation into the complaints.

The Supreme Court's observations came amid continuing legal challenges over the handling of the Delhi protests, with the court examining allegations concerning police action, restrictions on demonstrations and the impact of the agitations on businesses and public movement.

ALSO READ: 'Rahul Gandhi Believes in Anarchy' BJP Gaurav Bhatia Sharp Attack On LoP