Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on November 3 directed traders who have approached it alleging that protests against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar have adversely affected their businesses in Delhi to implead the organisers of the protests as parties to their plea.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the direction while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the protests, including those relating to the alleged police action, surveillance at designated protest sites and the right to protest.

The Court directed the Kirana Committee Delhi to implead the organisers against whom allegations have been made.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the trading associations, submitted that the protests had severely affected commercial activities in Delhi, particularly during the festive season.

"I represent all trading associations in Delhi...all shops remain closed, there's nobody in CP today. If you don't sell during festive season...our sales are down. My request is - they must look at some out of the box solution," Rohatgi said. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta said that bandh organisers have to take responsibility.

He claimed that shops remained closed and that there was hardly any business activity in Connaught Place on the week ahead of Dussehra when protests were called by the CJP. He further submitted that traders were suffering substantial losses due to the protests.

"Our sales are down. If you don't sell during the festive season, our people are bleeding," Rohatgi submitted. If protests continue, even the Diwali sales would be affected, he said, calling for some "out-of-the-box solutions."

He urged the Court to ensure that no protests or dharnas take place for the next two months.

Supreme Court Emphasises Right To Protest

The Chief Justice of India observed that everyone has a right to protest, but such protests cannot result in the indefinite occupation of a designated site.

"You can't occupy a site for all times. Where farmers, journalists, etc. will go? Everyone has right to protest. Designated time must be given for designated period," the CJI remarked.

The Chief Justice further observed that orders granting permission for protests must clearly define the terms and conditions under which permission is granted.

"You can't prevent other people, that I am doing protest now you can't," he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted that permission for the protest at Jantar Mantar was granted only for one day, but the protesters occupied the site for 17 days.

He further stated that the protesters had marched towards Parliament and that they could not have been permitted to proceed to Parliament or the Supreme Court without prior permission.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy submitted that Jantar Mantar was a designated protest site and alleged that the violence during the protests was perpetrated by the Delhi Police.

She also referred to the detention of around 7,000 people, questioning whether the action taken against protesters was compatible with democratic values.

The Solicitor General, however, clarified that the individuals were not detained but merely removed from the site.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan submitted that the businesses were affected not because of protests but due to the barricading by the Delhi police, and the issue was whether the police action was proportionate.

Senior Advocate PV Dinesh, for the KUWJ, submitted that there would be traders at protest sites as well. "Every site, there would be some trader. it's a democratic process".

The bench also allowed the intervention of auto-rickshaw operators and truck operators who contended that their right to livelihood was affected by the protests.



Tags: