No Protest Site Can Be Occupied Indefinitely: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has emphasised that the constitutional right to protest must be exercised in a manner that also respects the rights and interests of other sections of society. Observing that no group can claim permanent control over a designated protest venue, the Court highlighted the need to ensure that different organisations and communities get an opportunity to raise their concerns. The observations came during a hearing on petitions arising from the October protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, where the Court also examined the economic impact of demonstrations, restrictions on businesses and the issue of surveillance at protest sites.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter on Tuesday.

During the proceedings, the CJI observed that protestors cannot occupy a particular location indefinitely, as other groups also have legitimate demands and the right to demonstrate.

“You cannot occupy a site for all times to come. There are other protesters. Where will the farmers go? Where will the workers go? Where will the trade unions go? Where will the homeless go? Everybody has a right to protest,” CJI Kant said.

The Bench also drew attention to the financial difficulties faced by daily-wage workers when protests disrupt normal economic activities.

“There are conflicting claims. The right to protest is also a constitutionally recognised right, as is the right to trade and carry on business. We are not talking about trade merely in terms of commercial establishments. We are talking about the source of livelihood of a daily-wage worker. Where does that person go for their daily bread?,” CJI Kant said.

Highlighting the need to accommodate different groups seeking to organise demonstrations, the CJI questioned why permission for further protests was not being granted and stressed that one organisation’s occupation of a venue should not prevent others from using it.

“You must also find out why further time is not being granted. There may be another request for another protest. There may be one site or two, but everybody has a right to protest…You cannot exclude other people merely because you have occupied the site. You cannot say that because you have occupied it, you will not allow others,” he said.

Solicitor General Flags Protests Without Permission

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to the July demonstration organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), stating that permission had been granted for a single day, but the protest continued for 17 days.

He further alleged that the protestors subsequently proceeded towards Parliament without obtaining the necessary authorisation.

“Then, without obtaining permission, they marched towards Parliament. Parliament is not just a political building. It is a symbol of the sovereignty of India. You cannot be permitted to go to Parliament. You cannot be permitted to go to the Supreme Court of India and protest without permission,” he said.

Mehta maintained that while designated protest venues are one aspect of the issue, organising demonstrations without official approval and mobilising large crowds towards important constitutional institutions raises separate concerns.

Traders Claim ₹2,000 Crore Revenue Loss

The economic consequences of demonstrations in the national capital also featured prominently during the hearing. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing traders, claimed that the protests had resulted in business losses amounting to ₹2,000 crore.

He pointed out that Ramlila Maidan, which has been designated as a protest venue in Delhi, is located approximately one mile from Connaught Place and is surrounded by densely populated residential and commercial areas.

“Within one mile of Ramlila Maidan, you have millions of people living there and all kinds of wholesale markets. There is Asaf Ali Road, Daryaganj, Turkman Gate, Kamla Market, and then it joins Jama Masjid. All of this is within one mile. At least 50 lakh people live there. The government must now think and come out with a scheme, whether for Delhi or other State capitals. This is no longer merely about Jantar Mantar,” he said.

Rohatgi also highlighted the difficulties faced by traders during the festive period, when businesses depend heavily on increased consumer spending.

“If you do not sell during the festive season, the losses are enormous. There are millions of workers, ancillary workers, tempo operators, labourers and loaders who are affected,” he said.

However, Justice Bagchi questioned whether the decline in business could be attributed entirely to protestors, pointing out that restrictions imposed by the authorities and road barricades could also contribute to reduced commercial activity.

“Can the lack of sales be attributed only to the protests? The economy may also be in a particular position. Barricades are also placed on the streets. What if the State forces shops to close?,” the Court said.

Responding to the observation, Solicitor General Mehta argued that protest-related disruptions had also forced businesses to shut down in certain situations.

“They forced the shops to close. There are situations where protests become violent.”

He further stressed that demonstrations should not be organised without official permission, particularly when they involve large gatherings and marches towards sensitive institutions.

“The result is loss of livelihood to others. And then you start shouting in the court, saying nothing can be done against us. But a protest site is one thing. Calling for a protest without permission and asking lakhs of people to march towards Parliament is another,” Mehta said.

Debate Over Ramlila Maidan as Designated Protest Venue

The location of authorised demonstrations also became a point of discussion during the proceedings.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan submitted that Ramlila Maidan is an officially designated venue for protests and questioned where citizens should demonstrate if objections were raised against this location as well.

“But it is a notified site for protest. Jantar Mantar was relocated. Now you have a problem with Ramlila Ground also. So where should people protest?,” he said.

His submission brought the focus back to the challenge of identifying suitable demonstration venues that allow citizens to exercise their democratic rights without causing disproportionate disruption to surrounding communities and commercial establishments.

Privacy and Surveillance During Demonstrations

The hearing also addressed concerns regarding the monitoring of protestors at public demonstration sites.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the authorities should explain the nature of surveillance carried out during protests and identify the legal provisions under which such monitoring was undertaken.

“There is a right to privacy in a public place, even when you are protesting publicly,” he said.

In response, Solicitor General Mehta stated that the surveillance in question was limited to CCTV monitoring. He also pointed out that numerous social media influencers were recording and broadcasting the demonstrations themselves.

“There are 500 to 600 influencers recording live, and they are objecting to government CCTV,” he said.

The Bench, meanwhile, discussed the extent to which privacy could reasonably be expected in an open public space.

“The most relevant interjection here is reasonable expectation of privacy. When I am standing in a public place, what is my reasonable expectation of privacy? I cannot choose to go in public and say that my privacy must be protected.”

Balancing Democratic Rights and Public Interest

The Supreme Court’s observations underline the importance of maintaining a balance between the freedom to assemble and protest and the rights of people whose livelihoods depend on uninterrupted economic activity. While peaceful demonstrations remain an essential feature of a democratic society, the Court’s remarks indicate that access to public protest venues cannot become the exclusive privilege of any particular organisation or group.

The proceedings have also brought wider questions concerning protest permissions, the economic consequences of demonstrations and surveillance in public spaces into focus. The central challenge remains ensuring that the right to dissent is protected while public spaces, commercial activities and the interests of other citizens are not indefinitely compromised.