‘No indefinite occupation’: Supreme Court says protest sites must have time limits

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that no individual, organisation or group could claim an indefinite right to occupy a designated protest site, stressing that every citizen must have an equal opportunity to use public spaces to raise grievances. The court said permission to stage a demonstration must specify the period for which a site can be occupied, as the constitutional right to protest cannot come at the expense of others exercising the same right.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions arising from the July demonstrations led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) in Delhi. The proceedings covered allegations of mass detentions, police excesses, internet restrictions, the closure of metro stations and surveillance of protesters.

The demonstrations, which included a proposed march towards Parliament and incidents of violence, also prompted Delhi's traders to approach the court, alleging that the prolonged protests had disrupted commercial activity and affected livelihoods, particularly during the festive season.

“Even the right to protest at a designated site has to be for a certain period. You cannot occupy a protest site for all time to come…where will farmers, traders, journalists go? Everyone has a right to protest. Designated sites must be given for a designated period,” the bench observed.

It further said that permission to hold a demonstration at an identified location could not be treated as an open-ended licence. The order granting permission must clearly explain the reasons for allowing or rejecting a protest and, where permission is granted, specify how long the organisers can use the site.

“You cannot occupy a protest site indefinitely. You cannot prevent other people from protesting, saying ‘I can protest and you cannot’,” the court said.

Supreme Court seeks balance between protest and livelihood

The court was also hearing a petition filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi and other traders' associations, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi. He argued that demonstrations had severely affected businesses in the national capital, particularly during the festive period.

Rohatgi pointed out that Ramlila Ground was close to Connaught Place, an area surrounded by commercial establishments and home to millions of residents. He said the disruption affected not only large businesses but also small traders, daily-wage workers and transport operators who depended on regular commercial activity for their livelihoods.

Seeking a solution, he urged the court to prohibit protests and sit-ins across Delhi for the next two months, irrespective of whether they were held with or without official permission.

The bench, however, cautioned against approaching the dispute as a choice between the rights of protesters and those of traders. It said both the right to protest peacefully and the right to trade and earn a livelihood were constitutionally recognised.

“It is a competing right, your right to trade, business and earn livelihood and someone’s right to protest peacefully,” the bench said.

It added that the right to livelihood was not limited to business profits but also covered daily-wage earners and small traders. The court said the way forward was to identify public spaces where demonstrations could take place without obstructing the ability of others to work and earn their living.

The bench directed Rohatgi to implead the organisations that had organised the demonstrations in the traders' petition, observing that their responses were necessary before it could adjudicate the competing claims. It also asked the traders to submit an assessment of the financial losses they had suffered.

Centre says protesters occupied site for 17 days

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, told the bench that permission for the July 20 demonstration had been granted for only one day. However, he said, protesters continued occupying the site for 17 days and subsequently called for a march towards Parliament without obtaining permission.

Mehta argued that those organising protests or calling for a bandh must take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

The proceedings also included petitions challenging the police response to the July demonstrations. These raised allegations of illegal detentions, excessive force, restrictions on internet access and the closure of metro stations. The court identified nine categories of issues arising from the petitions and permitted the Centre and Delhi Police to file their responses either during the day or shortly afterwards.

In a related submission, the traders' associations maintained that repeated demonstrations had affected commercial activity in the capital. A separate report on the proceedings said the traders had also sought an arrangement to prevent further disruption during the festive season, while the court directed them to bring the protest organisers formally into the case.

Earlier order quashed FIRs against NEET-UG protesters

The Supreme Court had previously invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash FIRs registered against students who participated in the July 20-25 protests over the NEET-UG examination.

It directed that other FIRs registered across the country in connection with the same incidents should not be pursued or investigated and would be treated as closed. However, the court permitted authorities to proceed against 2,873 individuals whom Delhi Police had identified as having serious criminal antecedents.

The police had used facial recognition technology during the demonstrations to identify individuals with criminal records. The use of the technology, and the extent to which it could be deployed to identify protesters, subsequently became a separate issue before the court.

Jantar Mantar denotification also under scrutiny

The bench is separately examining Delhi Police's decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and shift demonstrations to Ramlila Ground, Burari Ground and CBD Ground.

The court has issued notice on a challenge to the decision, saying it would examine whether the authorities had independently assessed the suitability and effectiveness of Jantar Mantar as a venue for demonstrations.

The controversy followed the police decision to withdraw Jantar Mantar's status as an authorised protest location on October 12. The three alternative venues were identified for demonstrations after the change. The court is examining whether the decision was based on an independent assessment of the site's suitability and the requirements of peaceful protests.

Court examines facial recognition and surveillance concerns

The use of surveillance technology during demonstrations was another major issue before the bench. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Software Freedom Law Centre, India, questioned the legal basis for using facial recognition technology and its implications for citizens' right to privacy.

The court said the issue went beyond the presence of CCTV cameras in public places. It would have to examine whether using technology to identify individuals and match their images against databases infringed privacy, and whether such use was supported by a legitimate state objective.

The bench also referred to amendments to the Identification of Prisoners Act, which allow authorities to collect and use biometric information, including iris scans.

At an earlier hearing, the court had directed the Centre to produce orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) during the protests. On Tuesday, senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, representing some of the petitioners, told the bench that the relevant orders had still not been provided to them.

The Centre maintained that its affidavit already addressed the issue. Senior advocates Mukta Gupta, N Hariharan, CU Singh, Meenakshi Arora, PV Dinesh and Arundhati Katju also appeared for various petitioners and applicants in the proceedings.

The bench said it would hear the petitions category-wise, allotting lawyers fixed time to present their arguments. The arrangement, it said, would help address the wide range of legal and constitutional questions in an orderly manner.