The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 3, 2026) remarked to Delhi traders that protests are not entirely hostile to business, pointing out that there is also “protest economy” that generates brisk earnings for enterprising hawkers and vendors at demonstration sites.
“We have lost thousands of crores. A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed sympathy for the right to livelihood of the small traders, hawkers, push cart vendors, noting that their right competed with the right to expression of the protestors. “Right to protest is constitutionally recognised. Right to trade is also. By ‘trade’ we do not mean commercial establishments, but those who do it as the sole source of livelihood, like the daily wagers, the subjiwala, etc. Where can they go? Chief Justice Kant observed. Mr. Rohatgi even detailed the one-mile route from CP and through Minto Road to Ramlila Grounds, saying the latter was not as far as everyone thought from the business centre in the heart of the capital city. Nobody is able to do business in Connaught Place. Thousands of auxiliary workers connected to these businesses are without a jobs as sales is down in the middle of the festive season,” Mr. “Everybody has a right to protest… But everybody must adhere to conditions of permission. You cannot occupy a protest site indefinitely. There are other protestors too… Where will they go? Chief Justice Kant asked. Mr. Mehta submitted that the organisers of protests or bandh calls must take responsibility for the losses caused to others. Senior advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for CPI(M) State secretary M.A. Baby along with advocate Subhash Chandran, questioned whether the authorities were suddenly having second thoughts about designating Ramlila Grounds as a designated site now. “So, where are we supposed to protest now as citizens? Protest is a democratic process. At every protest site, there are push cart vendors, hawkers and small traders doing business… Democracy works like that,” senior advocate P.V. Dinesh, appearing for the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, submitted. Justice Bagchi pointed out that essentials like food and water usually are supplied to protestors at the site by hawkers and vendors. Mr. “Mr. Are we not bleeding? Dr. Guruswamy submitted. Mr. Mehta objected, saying those were not ‘detentions’, but ‘removals’. In separate petitions, in one of which Dr. Guruswamy was herself a petitioner-in-person, and another filed by Rajya Sabha MP A.A. Rahim, deployment of facial recognition technology and allied mass-surveillance measures by the Delhi Police against students and protestors. “Right to privacy while protesting in public places? What kind of petitions are being filed? Mr. Mehta questioned the privacy argument. The question here is whether using facial and iris recognition amounts to legitimate state interest?”Justice Bagchi addressed the government side.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, referred to how the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP)-linked NEET-UG paper leak protestors had sought permission for a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar only for a day on June 20, but had refused to leave. The demonstration had ultimately culminated in violence after the protestors took out a ‘Sansad Chalo’ march to the Parliament on July 20 without taking any permission from the authorities. There were 7,000 illegal detentions [during the anti-CEC protests on October 10-11]… What about safety of women… There are over 500 influencers videographing protestors, yet they are objecting to the government?
The court said there was a need for balance. The court was responding to a petition filed by Kirana Committee Delhi that protests are “bleeding” the traders of Delhi dry during the two months of peak festive season around Dussehra and Deepavali. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the national capital’s traders, said even the Ramlila Grounds, the designated protest site after Jantar Mantar, was only a mile away from the iconic shopping and commercial hub of Connaught Place (CP) in the national capital. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench, said the court would take Mr. Rohatgi’s word for it as he was “the son of the soil of Delhi”. Rohatgi said. “There would be ample food… There is a protest economy… Like in melas, there is a lot of business done… ‘Mela economy’,” Justice Bagchi observed orally. Senior advocates Menaka Guruswamy and Arundhati Katju, said the only violence which emanated from protests in Delhi came from the side of the police. Hariharan said even the Delhi Police was “on strike” on November 2, referring to a demonstration by police personnel outside Delhi Police Headquarters at ITO, led by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashistha. Rohatgi said about ‘bleeding’. The Solicitor General said the apex court has ruled that ‘legitimate state interest’ was an exception to the right to privacy. Justice Bagchi said there was also, on the other hand, a “reasonable expectation of privacy” to balance the state’s interests. “You have said the technology is used to identify criminals after comparing inputs received with the National Crime Records Bureau data.
Justice Bagchi asked the traders whether they had made the protest organisers a party in their case. Mr. Rohatgi replied in the negative, while calling for a two-month ban on protests during the festive season. The court issued notice on the plea, also seconded by the New Delhi Traders Association, but refused to pass any interim order without hearing the other stakeholder — the protest organisers. Referring to the recent Paris protests, Mr. Rohatgi highlighted the risk of violence. Senior advocate Indira Jaising reiterated the plea for setting up a committee headed by a woman and Special Investigation Team to examine grievances of sexual abuse faced by women journalists during the anti-CEC protests. eom
“In some parts of the world, protests have led to a huge amount of violence,” he said.
