The Supreme Court on Friday asked the organisers of the proposed October 10 protests in Delhi to appear before it at 2pm, as it sought to balance the right to peaceful assembly against the disruption of essential services for millions of residents amid sweeping security restrictions imposed ahead of the demonstrations.
It also indicated that the Delhi high court could be asked to take up the pending petition on Friday afternoon instead of Monday. He maintained that the proposed demonstration was peaceful and questioned the need for restrictions of such a scale. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appears for the Centre and Delhi police in a batch of related matters, defended the measures, saying they were intended to prevent unlawful acts. He argued that an otherwise peaceful gathering could turn unlawful. At the same time, the court emphasised that the rights of demonstrators could not be considered in isolation from those of ordinary residents. The bench noted that postponing the hearing until Monday could make the challenge partly infructuous, given that the protest was scheduled for Saturday.
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, hearing concerns over the closure of 57 metro stations and other curbs in the national capital, said it needed details of the proposed gathering, including the expected number of participants, to determine whether the protest could be regulated without imposing disproportionate hardship on the public. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Mariam Alexander Baby, told the court that railway stations, metro stations and other public facilities were being shut and hotels had been asked not to accept fresh bookings for October 10.
“The whole of Delhi has been shut down,” advocate Prashant Bhushan said, while senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan pointed out that the Delhi high court had deferred a related petition until Monday, potentially rendering the relief meaningless. The court said it needed to know how many people were expected, the proposed duration of the demonstration and the conditions under which it would be held before deciding how the state could regulate it.
