The Supreme Court on Tuesday said no individual, group or organisation could claim an indefinite right to occupy a designated protest site, underlining that others too have an equal constitutional right to use the same public space to raise their grievances.
Because of the demonstrations, particularly during the festive season, among others, the court was hearing a petition filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi and other traders’ bodies, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who said businesses in parts of the capital had suffered. “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,” a bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, observed. The bench made it clear that permission to hold a protest at an identified site could not translate into an open-ended licence to occupy it. “You cannot occupy a protest site indefinitely. Rohatgi urged the court to consider a solution that would protect the right to trade and earn a livelihood, including that of small traders, daily-wage workers and transport operators. He sought a prohibition on protests and dharnas in Delhi for the next two months, whether held with or without permission. The right to livelihood, it added, was not confined to business profits but extended to daily wagers and small traders.
You cannot prevent other people from protesting, saying ‘I can protest and you cannot’,” said the court, adding that the order granting permission must spell out the reasons for allowing or refusing a protest and, if allowed, the duration for which the site could be used. He told the bench that the Ramlila Ground was close to Connaught Place and that the surrounding stretch was home to millions of residents as well as several shops and commercial establishments. “It is a competing right — your right to trade, business and earn livelihood and someone’s right to protest peacefully,” it said. “These are two competing claims — right to protest is recognised by the Constitution and right to trade and earn livelihood,” said the bench, adding that the way forward was to identify public spaces for demonstrations without hampering the ability of others to earn their livelihood.
