New Delhi/Alive News: The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the right to protest does not give any organisation the authority to occupy a public place indefinitely. The court said designated protest sites must have time limits so that other groups and organisations also get an opportunity to express their views.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mahadevan, was hearing multiple petitions related to protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar in Delhi in October.
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant said that no organisation could occupy a place permanently and questioned where farmers, journalists, labourers and other protesters would go if one group continued its agitation indefinitely.
Traders claim losses of ₹2,000 crore
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Delhi’s trade associations, told the court that the protests had severely affected business activities, particularly during the festive season. He claimed that traders had suffered losses of approximately ₹2,000 crore due to shop closures and declining sales. He urged the court to prohibit protests and sit-ins for the next two months.
Police say permission was granted for one day
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Delhi Police, said an organisation had been granted permission to protest at Jantar Mantar for one day but continued its demonstration for 17 days. He also alleged that protesters marched towards Parliament without permission.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy raised concerns over the detention of around 7,000 people. Mehta responded that they had been removed from the protest site rather than detained.
Questions raised over surveillance
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan questioned the legal basis for surveillance of protesters. Mehta said the monitoring was limited to CCTV cameras and pointed out that social media influencers were also recording the demonstrations.
The Supreme Court is hearing nine connected matters concerning police action, alleged illegal detentions, restrictions on movement, metro and train services, surveillance, protest permissions and business losses during the demonstrations.
