The Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 3, said no individual or organisation can occupy a protest site indefinitely, observing that even designated venues for demonstrations must have a defined time limit.
The remarks came during a hearing on multiple petitions linked to protests in Delhi, including demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and concerns raised by traders over the disruption caused by prolonged protests.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who was heading a bench with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said that everyone has a right to protest, but no group can claim exclusive use of a public space indefinitely.
“You cannot occupy a site for all times to come. There are other protesters also. Where will farmers or lawyers go? Everyone has a right to protest,” the Chief Justice said.
The bench said that permission to hold a demonstration at a designated location should specify the period for which the site can be used.
The court observed that allowing one group to occupy a venue indefinitely could prevent others from exercising their own right to protest.
It also indicated that the terms and conditions of protest permissions should be clearly defined, including the duration of the demonstration.
The observations came amid a wider dispute over the use of public spaces in Delhi for protests and the impact of demonstrations on residents, businesses and other groups.
The Supreme Court was also hearing a plea filed by traders’ organisations, including the Kirana Committee Delhi, which alleged that prolonged demonstrations had affected commercial activity and livelihoods in parts of the national capital.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the traders, raised concerns about the impact of protests on shops, businesses, daily-wage workers and transport operators.
The traders’ bodies sought restrictions on protests and sit-ins in Delhi during the festive season, arguing that repeated demonstrations had disrupted business.
The bench, however, emphasised that the dispute involved competing rights: the right to protest peacefully and the right to trade and earn a livelihood.
The court said the solution would require identifying public spaces where demonstrations could take place without unduly affecting the ability of others to carry out their daily activities.
The hearing is connected to a series of demonstrations in Delhi, including protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The court is examining several issues arising from the protests, including allegations of police action, mass detentions, restrictions on internet access and the closure of Metro stations.
Another issue before the court is the Delhi Police’s decision to remove Jantar Mantar’s status as a designated protest site and shift demonstrations to alternative locations, including Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground.
The court is also considering petitions concerning the alleged use of facial recognition technology and surveillance during the demonstrations.
The Supreme Court’s remarks underline the need to balance the right to peaceful protest with the rights of other citizens.
The bench did not say that protests should be prohibited altogether. Instead, it stressed that designated sites must remain accessible to different groups and that permissions should have clear time limits.
The court is continuing to hear the connected petitions, with several questions—including the use of protest sites, alleged police excesses and the impact of demonstrations on livelihoods—still under consideration.