New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) has made it clear that no designated protest site can be occupied indefinitely, stressing that demonstrations must have fixed time limits to protect public convenience and the livelihood of others.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, made the observation while hearing petitions concerning protest restrictions in Delhi and alleged business losses caused by prolonged demonstrations.
Right to protest cannot disrupt livelihoods
The bench emphasised that the right to peaceful protest must be balanced against the right to conduct business and earn a livelihood. It observed that traders, daily-wage workers and other citizens cannot be made to suffer indefinitely because of demonstrations.
The matter came up following a petition by the Kirana Committee Delhi and other traders’ organisations, which alleged that prolonged protests had severely affected commercial activities, particularly during the festive season. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the traders, highlighted the financial losses and sought restrictions on protests and sit-ins in Delhi for two months.
SC stresses fixed duration for protests
The court observed that permission to demonstrate at an officially designated location cannot be treated as an unlimited licence. Authorities must clearly specify the conditions and duration of demonstrations while granting permission.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that permission for a demonstration at Jantar Mantar had initially been granted for one day, but protesters allegedly continued occupying the site for 17 days. He also referred to a proposed march towards Parliament without the required permission.
The bench questioned how other groups, including farmers, journalists and traders, could exercise their democratic rights if one organisation were allowed to occupy a protest venue indefinitely.
Jantar Mantar dispute in focus
The hearing also brought the Jantar Mantar controversy into focus. The Delhi Police had removed the venue from the list of designated protest sites in October and identified Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground in Shahdara as alternative locations. The decision has also been challenged in court.
The bench asked the traders’ organisations to include the protest organisers as parties to the case and submit details of the alleged financial losses.
Balance between democratic rights and public convenience
The Supreme Court’s observations underline that while the Constitution guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, these rights must coexist with public convenience and the livelihood of others.
The court has not imposed a blanket ban on protests or prescribed a uniform time limit for all demonstrations. However, its observations signal that indefinite occupation of public spaces cannot be justified in the name of democratic dissent.
