The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that no individual or organisation can occupy a designated protest site indefinitely, emphasising that every group has an equal right to use public spaces to raise its grievances. The observations came during a hearing on multiple petitions linked to recent protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed that even designated protest sites must be allotted for a specific period. “You cannot occupy a site for all times to come. There are other protesters also. Where will farmers or lawyers go? Everyone has a right to protest,” Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked during the proceedings.
The court stressed that the constitutional right to peaceful protest must be balanced with the rights of other citizens, including traders, workers and daily-wage earners. It observed that allowing one organisation to occupy a public space indefinitely could prevent other groups from exercising their democratic rights.
The hearing also addressed a petition filed by traders’ organisations, which alleged that repeated demonstrations in the national capital had caused significant financial losses. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the traders, told the court that commercial activities in several areas, including Connaught Place, had been severely affected. He claimed that shops remained closed and businesses suffered substantial losses during the protests.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and Delhi Police, informed the bench that permission for the July 20 demonstration had initially been granted for just one day. However, the protesters allegedly continued occupying the site for 17 days and subsequently called for a march towards Parliament. Mehta argued that organisers must take responsibility for the consequences of protests and demonstrations.
The Supreme Court also examined concerns surrounding the removal of Jantar Mantar’s designation as an official protest site. The authorities have identified alternative locations, including Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground, for holding demonstrations.
The proceedings involved several other petitions raising allegations of mass detentions, police excesses, internet restrictions, metro station closures and the use of facial recognition technology during the protests. The bench indicated that these issues would be examined separately under different categories to ensure an organised hearing.
The court asked the traders’ organisations to include the political parties and groups that organised the demonstrations as parties to their petition so that their responses could also be considered. It also sought further details regarding the financial losses claimed by the traders.
The Supreme Court’s observations underline the need to maintain a constitutional balance between the right to peaceful protest and the right of citizens to conduct business and earn their livelihood. While the court recognised the importance of democratic demonstrations, it made clear that public spaces cannot be treated as the permanent property of any individual or organisation.
