New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought responses from the Centre and other authorities on a petition filed by Delhi's traders' organisations seeking restrictions on protests during the festive season, citing significant losses to commercial activities due to demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana observed that no individual or organisation could occupy a designated protest site indefinitely, emphasising that other groups must also have the opportunity to exercise their right to peaceful protest.
"You can't occupy a site at all times. Where will farmers, journalists, etc., go? Everyone has the right to protest. Designated time must be given for a designated period," Chief Justice Surya Kant observed during the hearing.
The bench was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the recent protests in Delhi, including a plea filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi alleging substantial business losses due to demonstrations at Ramlila Maidan. Other petitions raised concerns over alleged mass detentions, police brutality, restrictions on journalists, closure of metro stations and internet shutdowns during the protests.
Appearing for the traders' organisations, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that commercial activities had been severely affected, particularly in areas surrounding Ramlila Maidan and Connaught Place. He told the bench that nearly 50 lakh people lived in the surrounding areas and that several shops had remained shut due to the disruptions.
According to the traders' organisations, businesses suffered estimated losses of ₹14,000 crore between October 1 and November 1. Of this, approximately ₹11,000 crore was attributed to the November 1 rally at Ramlila Maidan, while the remaining ₹3,000 crore was linked to disruptions during October.
The traders also claimed that around 2.5 lakh shops within a five-kilometre radius of the protest venue were affected. They argued that the demonstrations and associated traffic restrictions had disrupted business during the festive shopping period.
Rohatgi sought restrictions on protests and demonstrations in Delhi for the next two months, arguing that the livelihoods of small traders, daily-wage workers and others dependent on commercial activities were being affected.
The bench, however, stressed that the issue involved competing constitutional rights, including the right to protest peacefully and the right to trade and earn a livelihood. It observed that the solution would lie in identifying appropriate public spaces for demonstrations without disrupting the day-to-day activities of others.
The court also indicated that permission granted for protests should specify the duration and conditions under which a designated site could be used. It further observed that allowing one group to occupy a public space indefinitely would prevent other sections of society, including farmers, workers and trade unions, from exercising the same right.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, submitted that permission for an earlier demonstration had been granted for only one day, but the protesters continued occupying the site for 17 days. He also referred to the subsequent proposed march towards Parliament.
The bench directed the traders' organisations to implead the organisers of the anti-CEC protests as parties to the petition, observing that their presence was necessary for the court to examine the allegations and hear all sides.
Meanwhile, the Chamber of Trade and Industry (CTI) has also sought alternative venues for demonstrations and urged authorities to restrict rallies and sit-ins during the festive period, citing the impact on commercial establishments.