/
Supreme Court: protest sites cannot be occupied indefinitely, even designated ones need time limits
Hearing petitions over Delhi's anti-CEC protests, a bench led by CJI Surya Kant said on 3 November no group can occupy a protest site for all time. The right to protest and the right to trade are both protected, it said. Traders claim Rs 2,000 crore in losses.
A
5 min
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday, 3 November, that protest sites cannot be occupied indefinitely and that even designated sites should have a time limit. The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing a batch of petitions arising out of the October protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. 'You cannot occupy a site for all times to come,' the Chief Justice said.
What the court said
The bench framed the matter as a conflict between two rights that the Constitution recognises: the right to protest and the right to carry on trade. It said a protest site can be occupied only for a specified period so that other groups can use it, and that no group has the right to take over public space indefinitely. At the same time the Chief Justice affirmed the right to protest, saying that one site or two, everybody has a right to protest and that occupying a site does not allow excluding others. He asked where people such as daily-wage workers would go. Justice Bagchi asked whether lost business could be blamed only on protesters, when the state also places barricades on roads, and the court said that a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place is limited. The bench also said that the traders' concerns could not be addressed without the organisations behind the protests, and asked that all protesting organisations, including the political parties in the anti-CEC protest, be made parties to the case.
The arguments
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that a demonstration on 20 July by the Cockroach Janta Party had been permitted for one day but lasted 17 days, after which the protesters marched towards Parliament without permission. 'You cannot march to Parliament,' he said, and added that Parliament is a symbol of sovereignty and that the people who plan protests are responsible for the consequences. He said that Jantar Mantar is a public road and not a designated protest site, that only CCTV surveillance was used, and that people were removed and not detained.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for traders, claimed losses of Rs 2,000 crore and asked for a two-month ban on protests. He said about 50 lakh people live in the area around the protest site, and that shops stayed shut and Connaught Place was deserted. The reports differ on how the loss is attributed. One trader petition seeks to limit protests during the festival season, and the traders' body CAIT welcomed the court's observations.
For the protesters, N. Hariharan said Ramlila Maidan is a notified protest site, Jantar Mantar had been relocated and asked where protesters should go. Prashant Bhushan asked the authorities to disclose what surveillance was being carried out and its legal basis, and Menaka Guruswamy said about 7,000 people had been detained, a figure the Solicitor General disputed.
The protests behind the case
The petitions trace back to the demonstrations against the Chief Election Commissioner that began in October. On 10 October the Delhi Police denied permission for a protest by the Cockroach Janta Party at Jantar Mantar, citing the late submission of the application, law-and-order concerns and earlier violations of the rules, and detained thousands of people, among them party leaders and Opposition politicians, before they could reach the site. Delhi deployed 25,000 personnel and restricted 45 metro stations that day. The party vowed to continue its protest, and the Opposition's later rally at Ramlila Maidan was held on 1 November.
The government has cancelled Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and fixed three alternative sites, including Ramlila Maidan, where the INDIA bloc held a large rally on 1 November. The court is also reviewing petitions on alleged mass arrests, police brutality, metro station closures and internet shutdowns during the protests. The reports differ on the timeline: the petitions concern the October protests, while the Solicitor General referred to a permit for a July demonstration that overstayed.
A separate matter on the voter rolls is before the same court. On 15 October the court asked the Election Commission and others to respond to a petition by Congress MP Rahul Gandhi and 12 Opposition leaders over alleged deletions and irregularities in the revision of the rolls, which is the issue the protests were about.
The court sought responses from the Centre and others, but the reports reviewed do not give a next hearing date, any deadline for the responses, or the text of a written order. The Chief Justice's remarks signal that the court is looking for a framework that would set time limits on the use of protest sites, with a place for each group to use in turn, rather than a ban on protests. How such a limit would work, who would decide the length of a stay and what happens when a protest outlasts it are the questions the court will have to answer once the parties have responded.
For the Opposition parties, which have organised rallies against the Chief Election Commissioner at Ramlila Maidan and plan a mega protest in Bengaluru on 5 November, the court's attention to time limits on sites will matter. For the traders around Connaught Place, the court's recognition of the right to trade is a first step, but the court has not accepted a ban, and the question of who bears the losses is still open.
A
5 min
What did you think?
