The Supreme Court on Tuesday said no group can occupy a designated protest site indefinitely, stressing that the constitutional right to peaceful demonstration must be balanced against the rights of other protesters and of people whose livelihoods are affected by prolonged agitations. The observation came as a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant heard a batch of petitions arising from recent protests in Delhi.
The bench, which also comprised Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notices to the Centre and other respondents while hearing petitions challenging the Delhi Police's crackdown on protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
It also took up a plea filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi seeking a halt to protests during the festive season, and heard arguments on police excesses, mass detentions, surveillance, internet restrictions and the closure of metro stations.
At the heart of the hearing was a simple question: how long can one group hold a public protest site, and what happens to everyone else who wants to use the same space? The Chief Justice put it directly, asking where farmers, journalists, lawyers, trade unions and homeless people would go if one organisation were allowed to retain a location permanently. Everyone has the right to protest, he said, but designated time must be given for a designated period.
The court directed the traders' body that had approached it to make the INDIA bloc parties respondents in its plea, saying the issues could not be determined without hearing the organisers of the protests. No court can determine the issue unless the organisers are made parties, the bench indicated, and it asked the petitioners to implead all organisations that had conducted the protests.
Traders' associations argued that demonstrations in central Delhi had severely disrupted commercial activity during the festive season. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing traders, said shops in Connaught Place and surrounding areas remained closed and that traders were suffering losses because they could not sell during the period when sales matter most.
He urged the court to consider an out-of-the-box solution, arguing that the issue could no longer be viewed merely as a dispute over a designated protest location, given the number of people living and working in the surrounding areas.
According to the Chamber of Trade and Industry, Delhi's traders feared business losses of Rs 10,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore as a rally and associated traffic restrictions affected wholesale markets, transport operations and festive-season shopping.
Its chairman, Brijesh Goyal, told a news agency that around 80 per cent of shops in major markets surrounding Ramlila Maidan remained closed amid traffic restrictions and concerns over large crowds, although he clarified that actual losses would be assessed after receiving detailed information from individual markets.
Around 20 to 22 major markets, including Chandni Chowk, Sadar Bazaar, Khari Baoli, Chawri Bazaar, Karol Bagh, Connaught Place and Janpath, account for approximately three lakh shops.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, responded that those calling for a bandh should take responsibility for its consequences. He submitted that permission had been granted for only one day, but the protesters continued occupying the site for 17 days, and alleged that they had marched towards Parliament without authorisation to proceed to Parliament or the Supreme Court.
He also said the government's response covered five categories, including habeas corpus petitions, journalists, advocates and the denotification of Jantar Mantar.
The hearing also examined competing claims over the use of designated protest sites in the national capital. Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the petitioners, argued that Jantar Mantar was a notified protest site and questioned the objections being raised against demonstrations there.
The Solicitor General maintained that Jantar Mantar was a public road and not a designated site for indefinite demonstrations, a distinction that goes to the heart of how protest space is managed in Delhi.
The Centre denotified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest venue on October 12, following a standoff, and demonstrations were shifted to Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground. The Supreme Court is separately examining that decision, and the question of where protests should be held, for how long, and under what conditions, remains central to the batch of cases before it.
On the previous date of hearing, the court had directed the Union government to produce the orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in Delhi during the protests. In Tuesday's hearing, Guruswamy pointed out that those orders were required to be placed before the court separately, and said the Delhi Police's justification for its action had been filed but the relevant order had not yet been placed on record.
Mehta responded that a fifth affidavit contained the information, while Guruswamy insisted that petitioners should be served a copy.
The bench also heard arguments concerning surveillance of protesters and the use of closed-circuit television cameras at designated protest locations. Advocate Prashant Bhushan sought details of the nature of surveillance being undertaken and the legislative framework governing it.
The Solicitor General questioned whether a person participating in a public demonstration could claim privacy in that setting, arguing that cameras were installed to ensure safety and prevent untoward incidents, much like surveillance cameras installed for women's safety.
Justice Bagchi described that argument as simplistic and examined the issue from the perspective of reasonable expectations of privacy and the subsequent use of collected data. He distinguished between merely recording a person's presence in a public place and using that information for identification or further investigation, and referred to techniques through which surveillance could be camouflaged.
He also discussed the state's ability to use identification techniques, including iris-based identification, under changes to the Identification of Prisoners Act, and questioned whether the availability of footage from a particular date necessarily established a legitimate state interest.
The Solicitor General argued that legitimate state interest was an exception to the right to privacy, and said identification through facial data could merely serve as a trigger for further investigation, including examination of a person's location and surrounding circumstances. The court also took up a petition concerning the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement agencies, issuing notice on the challenge to the legal framework governing that technology.
Separate issues were also dealt with during the hearing. The court asked the Congress and its leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi to file replies on a plea by a female journalist alleging that the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha had pushed her during a protest on the apex court premises.
It decided that a petition concerning alleged harassment of women journalists during the Delhi protests would be taken up separately on November 23, after Diwali, along with a request for a separate investigative committee.
To manage the large number of connected matters, the court decided to divide them into nine categories for structured hearings, with separate dates for different groups of petitions. That approach is intended to prevent a single sprawling hearing from obscuring distinct legal questions, ranging from the right to protest and traders' livelihoods to police conduct, surveillance and journalists' safety.
The court stressed that orders granting permission for demonstrations must clearly specify the conditions and reasons for allowing or refusing permission. That requirement, if enforced consistently, would give both protesters and authorities greater clarity about what is permitted, for how long, and under what restrictions, reducing the scope for disputes after a demonstration has begun.
For Delhi, the hearing points towards a more structured system for protest sites, in which time limits, clear conditions and access for different groups are built into permissions from the start. Whether that system emerges will depend on the court's final directions in the coming hearings, but Tuesday's observations already signal its direction: protest is a fundamental right, but no single group can claim a public space for all time at the expense of everyone else.
(Reporting based on News18 and Rediff.)