Indefinite Occupation of Designated Protest Sites Not Permissible

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made a significant observation that no individual, group, or organisation can claim the right to occupy a designated protest site indefinitely. The Court emphasised that others also possess an equal constitutional right to present their grievances and may use the same public space.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V Mohana noted that permission to protest at a designated site does not equate to an open licence to reside there. The Court stated, "The right to protest at a designated site is also for a specific period only. You cannot occupy the protest site forever... then where will farmers, traders, and journalists go? Everyone has the right to protest, therefore designated sites should be granted for a specified duration only."

The Court further clarified that the order granting permission must state the reasons for approving or denying the protest, and if permission is granted, the duration for which the site can be used must be clearly specified. The Court remarked that one person cannot stop others from protesting by claiming, 'I can protest and you cannot'.

These observations came during the hearing of petitions regarding police action during protests held in July by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). These petitions alleged mass detentions, police excesses, internet shutdowns, and the closure of metro stations. These protests included a proposal to march towards Parliament and witnessed incidents of violence.

On the other hand, Delhi traders also challenged these demonstrations. The Kirana Committee Delhi and other trader organisations, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, petitioned that prolonged protests have disrupted businesses and affected their livelihoods, especially during the festive season. Rohatgi stated that Ramlila Maidan is close to Connaught Place, where lakhs of residents and numerous shops as well as professional establishments are located. He demanded a ban on all protests and dharnas in Delhi, with or without permission, for the next two months.

The bench cautioned that this dispute should not be viewed in a manner where one party has to relinquish their rights. The Court stated that these are two competing rights—on one hand, the right to trade and earn a livelihood, and on the other, the right to protest peacefully. The Court added that the right to livelihood is not limited to business profits but also includes daily wagers and small traders. The Court stated that the way forward is to identify public spaces for protests such that they do not obstruct the livelihood of others.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on behalf of the Centre and Delhi Police, stated that permission for the July 20 protest was granted for only one day, but the protesters occupied the site for 17 days and subsequently called for a march towards Parliament without permission. He added that those organising shutdowns or protests must take responsibility for the consequences.

The Court has asked Rohatgi to implead the organisations organising the protests in this case, as their response is necessary before a final decision is taken. Additionally, it has instructed that the assessment of financial losses suffered by traders be placed on record. Meanwhile, the Court is also examining the decision of the Delhi Police to cancel Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and move protests to Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground, and CBD Ground.

According to a report by the Times of India, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the 24-hour period for arrest begins not from the formal arrest, but from the time of the person's detention.