Drawing the line, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said that protesters cannot occupy a protest site indefinitely, adding that others too have an equal constitutional right to use the same public space to raise their grievances.
“You cannot occupy a site for all time to come. There are other protesters. Where will the farmers go? Where will the workers go? Where will the trade unions go? Where will people experiencing homelessness go? Everybody has a right to protest,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said.
The observations came as the court heard a clutch of petitions arising from the police action during the July protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), including allegations of mass detentions, police excesses, internet restrictions and the closure of metro stations.
“Even the right to protest at a designated site has to be for a certain period. You cannot occupy a protest site for all time to come…where will farmers, traders, journalists go? Everyone has a right to protest. Designated sites must be given for a designated period,” a bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, observed. The bench also said others must have the opportunity to raise their grievances.
The bench made it clear that permission to hold a protest at an identified site could not translate into an open-ended licence to occupy it. “You cannot occupy a protest site indefinitely. You cannot prevent other people from protesting, saying ‘I can protest and you cannot’,” said the court, adding that the order granting permission must spell out the reasons for allowing or refusing a protest and, if allowed, the duration for which the site could be used.
CJP Surya Kant further said that orders granting permission for protests must clearly define the terms and conditions under which permission is granted. “You can’t prevent other people from protesting now, you can’t,” he said.
The Supreme Court also referred to the losses suffered by daily wagers because of the protests.
Stressing the need to balance the right to protest with the right to trade and earn a livelihood, particularly for daily-wage workers, the bench said the claims conflict and that both the right to protest and the right to trade and carry on business are constitutionally recognised rights.
“We are not talking about trade merely in terms of commercial establishments. We are talking about the source of livelihood of a daily-wage worker. Where does that person go for his daily bread?” CJI Kant said.
As protests gripped the national capital, traders raised concerns over mounting business losses, alleging that repeated shutdowns and disruptions linked to the agitations had hit commercial activity.
The bench has asked a traders’ body to make INDIA bloc parties respondents in its plea seeking to halt protests at Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan during the festive season, which are affecting their businesses, saying such sites cannot be occupied “all times to come”. The top court also asked the Congress and its leaders, Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi, to file their replies to a plea by a female journalist alleging that the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha had pushed her during a protest on the apex court premises.
During the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for a traders’ association in Delhi, raised concerns over the impact of the protests on businesses. Rohatgi, appearing for Kirana Committee Delhi, submitted, “I represent all the trading associations in Delhi… All shops remain closed; there’s nobody in Connaught Place today. “If you don’t sell during the festive season, our sales are down. If you don’t sell during the festive season, our people are bleeding. My request is - they must look at some out-of-the-box solutions.” The bench asked Rohatgi to implore the organisations that had organised the demonstrations, saying their responses were necessary before the court could decide the competing claims. It also asked him to place on record an assessment of the financial losses suffered by traders.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions alleging illegal detentions, assault on protesters and a contempt plea concerning restrictions on metro and train services, during the protests against the Chief Election Commissioner, Gyanesh Kumar, over alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission. The court is also hearing petitions alleging detention and assault on journalists during the course of the protests.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and Delhi police, told the bench that permission for the July 20 demonstration had been granted for only a day. Still, the protesters occupied the site for 17 days and subsequently called for a march to Parliament without permission. He said those organising a bandh or protest must take responsibility for its consequences.
Appearing in the matter, senior advocate N Hariharan submitted that Ramlila Maidan was a designated site for protests. “It is a notified site for protests. Jantar Mantar was relocated. Now you have a problem with Ramlila Maidan also. So where should people protest?” he said.