The Supreme Court on Tuesday said no individual, group or organisation could claim an indefinite right to occupy a designated protest site, underlining that others too have an equal constitutional right to use the same public space to raise their grievances.
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. “You cannot occupy a protest site indefinitely. The proceedings also covered petitions raising concerns over police action during the July demonstrations, including alleged illegal detentions, the use of facial recognition technology and surveillance of protesters. The court noted nine categories of issues arising from the petitions and allowed the Centre and Delhi Police to file their responses either during the day or shortly thereafter. The court is also examining the controversy over the Delhi Police’s decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and shift demonstrations to Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground. It has issued notice on a challenge to the decision, saying it would examine whether the authorities had independently applied their minds to the suitability and efficacy of Jantar Mantar as a protest venue.
To be sure, the Supreme Court had earlier invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIRs registered against students who participated in the July 20-25 protests over the NEET-UG examination. It directed that any other FIRs relating to the same incidents across the country would not be pursued or investigated and would be treated as closed, while permitting action against 2,873 individuals identified by Delhi Police as having serious criminal antecedents.
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.
Rohatgi urged the court to consider a solution that would protect the right to trade and earn a livelihood, including that of small traders, daily-wage workers and transport operators. He sought a prohibition on protests and dharnas in Delhi for the next two months, whether held with or without permission. Because of the demonstrations, particularly during the festive season, among others, the court was hearing a petition filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi and other traders’ bodies, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who said businesses in parts of the capital had suffered.
He told the bench that the Ramlila Ground was close to Connaught Place and that the surrounding stretch was home to millions of residents as well as several shops and commercial establishments.
