The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally observed that the constitutional right to protest cannot extend to indefinite occupation of a designated protest site, as this would deny other groups the same right.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions linked to recent protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. These included pleas from traders over business losses, as well as petitions alleging police excesses, detentions, and restrictions during the demonstrations.

“You can't occupy a site for all times. Where farmers, journalists, etc. will go? Everyone has right to protest. Designated site must be given for designated period,” CJI Surya Kant said. The Court emphasised that sites must be allotted for identified periods so that farmers, workers, trade unions, the homeless and others can also exercise their right to protest.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that permission for the July protest had been granted only for one day, but the Jantar Mantar site was occupied for a longer period.

The bench stressed the need to balance the right to protest with the right to trade and earn a livelihood, particularly for daily-wage workers. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for traders, submitted that businesses had suffered losses running into thousands of crores and sought a two-month restriction on protests, especially during the festive season. Traders' counsel claimed that around 50 lakh people live in areas around the protest site and that shops in places like Connaught Place remained shut with little commercial activity.

The Court issued notice on the plea by the Kirana Committee Delhi seeking a halt to protests during the festive period but directed the traders' associations to implead the organisers of the anti-CEC protests as parties, noting it could not fully adjudicate the grievances otherwise.

Other petitioners alleged unlawful detentions, custodial assault, barricading and excessive police action during the October protests.

The Court also issued notice on a petition questioning the legal framework for facial recognition surveillance and the use and security of collected data. It agreed to hear separately, after Diwali, a plea concerning alleged harassment of women journalists and a request for a separate investigative committee.

Lawyers' bodies raised issues of advocates being detained, internet disruption and restrictions on access to courts and chambers. Petitions regarding alleged assault, detention, seizure of devices and police action against journalists, including contempt proceedings, were taken up. The Court decided to divide the connected petitions into nine categories for separate hearings and sought proposed arguing sequences and time estimates from counsel. It indicated that fresh writ petitions would not ordinarily be entertained unless the Advocate-on-Record certified that they raised an entirely new and distinct issue.

Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, N Hariharan, Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, CU Singh, PV Dinesh, etc. appeared for the various petitioners questioning the police action and State restrictions against protesters. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for a petitioner seeking an SOP to regulate the participation of foreigners in protests.