SC Says Protest Sites Cannot Be Occupied Indefinitely
Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response to traders’ plea over Delhi demonstrations, says designated venues must have time limits
GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 3rd Nov: The Supreme Court protest sites hearing took a fresh turn on Tuesday, with the court observing that no group can occupy a designated venue indefinitely and that even approved locations for demonstrations should have a fixed time period.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant made the observations while hearing petitions linked to recent protests at Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan in Delhi. The court was also considering a plea by traders’ organisations seeking restrictions on demonstrations during the festive season, citing disruption to local businesses.
‘You cannot occupy a site for all times’
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant said that a protest venue could not remain occupied by one group permanently, pointing out that other sections of society also needed space to demonstrate.
“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,” the Chief Justice observed.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, argued that organisers who call for demonstrations must take responsibility for their consequences.
Mehta told the court that permission for the July 20 protest had been granted for one day, but the demonstrators allegedly continued occupying the area and marched towards Parliament.
He also said Parliament and the Supreme Court could not be treated as ordinary political buildings where protesters could march at will.
Traders cite business losses
The bench, which also includes Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, asked the traders’ organisations to make the political parties and other groups that organised the anti-Chief Election Commissioner protest parties to their petition.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the traders, told the court that around 50 lakh people live in areas near the protest site. He claimed that shops remained closed during the demonstrations and that Connaught Place was left deserted, causing losses to businesses.
The court indicated that the dispute could not be properly examined unless the organisations responsible for the protests were included in the proceedings.
The petitions before the bench also raise issues of alleged mass detention, police action, closure of metro stations and internet shutdowns during the demonstrations.
Jantar Mantar replaced by alternative venues
The hearing comes after the government removed Jantar Mantar’s designation as a protest site and named three alternative venues: Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in East Delhi.
The change followed a series of demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The INDIA bloc also held a rally at Ramlila Maidan on November 1 over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
On October 15, the Supreme Court had sought responses from the Centre and other authorities on petitions challenging the decision to remove Jantar Mantar from the list of designated protest venues.
The court had also sought responses from the Election Commission and other respondents on a plea filed by Congress MP Rahul Gandhi and 12 Opposition leaders concerning alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the revision process.
The latest hearing brings the competing concerns over peaceful protest, public convenience and the impact of demonstrations on businesses back before the court.
