The Supreme Court on Friday warned it would invoke its constitutional tort jurisdiction to award compensation if protests in Delhi disproportionately impede traders and daily-wage earners from pursuing their livelihoods, as it expressed concern over the hardship faced by small businesses during the festive season.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that the Delhi High Court had heard a similar petition on Thursday. CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke had called on supporters to assemble at Central Park on Friday with the national flag, alleging that party members Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka had been jailed for unfurling the Tricolour. In its order on Thursday, the Delhi High Court recorded an assurance from additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma that the police had already taken steps to regulate the activities of the CJP and would take all possible measures under the law.
“This is also related to protest. The two were sent to five days of judicial custody for allegedly violating their peace bonds and trespassing into Jantar Mantar after the Delhi Police de-notified the venue as a designated protest site. The assurance followed a petition by Anil Kumar Gupta, a street vendor at Palika Bazar, who apprehended that the proposed gathering could lead to restrictions on roads, footpaths and Metro station entrances, directly affecting his business and the livelihoods of other vendors. The police withdrew Jantar Mantar’s status as a designated protest venue and notified three alternatives — Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground in north Delhi and CBD Ground in east Delhi.
He claimed that the disruption around Connaught Place was causing losses of more than ₹ 250 crore a day. It can wait till October 26,” CJI Kant said initially, indicating that the matter would not be taken up immediately.
The court’s observations came a day after the Delhi High Court recorded an assurance from Delhi Police that it would take “all possible measures under the law” to regulate the proposed gathering and address apprehensions that it could disrupt business and movement in the Connaught Place area. Dehadrai told the Supreme Court that the proposed protest threatened substantial losses to traders, particularly when businesses depend on the festive season for a significant share of their earnings. Justice Bagchi said the court had the power to grant relief if it ultimately found that the restrictions imposed on business and livelihood were disproportionate.
