Protest sites cannot be occupied permanently: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that the right to protest does not give any party or organisation the freedom to sit at a particular place indefinitely. According to the court, public places are for the needs of all sections, so there must be a fixed duration for staging protests there.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana made this observation while hearing petitions related to protests held in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and previous sit-ins.

The court emphasized that a single party cannot continuously blockade a place and block the way of others. The Chief Justice asked that if the same party remains in occupation, how will other people like farmers, labourers and trade unions get space to raise their voice.

Mentioning that the common people's lives are affected due to protests, the bench said that a balance between the right to register protest and the right to earn a livelihood is very essential. The court said that the income of vendors, small business owners and daily wage workers should not be impacted by such protests.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta claimed before the court that during July, Cockroach Janta Party was given permission for only a one-day sit-in, but instead of leaving the spot, they sat there for 17 days and later started a march towards Parliament without permission.

Appearing for trader associations, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that markets remaining closed due to sit-ins during the festive season has caused heavy losses to businessmen. The court instructed the traders that the organisers of the protest should also be made a party in this case for claims regarding compensation for losses.

Apart from this, the issue of Delhi Police using CCTV cameras and facial recognition technology to monitor protesters also came up for hearing. After advocate Prashant Bhushan argued about violation of privacy, the Supreme Court issued a notice to examine the scope of people's right to privacy in public places.

Key developments

• Supreme Court said protest sites cannot be occupied for a long time
• Court emphasized fixing time limits to keep spaces open for farmers, labourers and other organisations
• Spoke about striking a balance between the right to protest and the livelihood of daily wagers and shopkeepers
• Court agreed to examine the right to privacy against using facial recognition technology on protesters