'No One Can Occupy Protest Site Forever': Supreme Court Says Designated Protest Venues Must Have Time Limits

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 3, observed that no individual or organisation can occupy a public protest site indefinitely, stressing that even designated demonstration venues must have a fixed time limit to ensure that others can also exercise their right to protest.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions concerning recent protests in Delhi.

The petitions relate to demonstrations by opposition parties and other groups against the Election Commission of India (ECI) and the Chief Election Commissioner, including protests linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The proceedings also concern the status of designated protest venues such as Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan.

'Everybody Has A Right To Protest': CJI Surya Kant

Emphasising that public spaces cannot be occupied by one group permanently, CJI Surya Kant said, "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."

The bench observed that designated protest sites should be allotted for a specific period, allowing different groups to use the same spaces. It underlined that the right to protest must be balanced against the rights of other citizens, including traders, daily-wage workers and people who depend on public spaces for their livelihoods.

The court also took note of complaints about economic losses caused by demonstrations and disruptions around protest venues.

Petitions Raise Issues Over Jantar Mantar, Ramlila Maidan

The batch of petitions before the court concerns several aspects of protests in the national capital, including alleged mass detentions, police action, restrictions on metro services and internet connectivity, and the denotification of Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site.

The matter also involves the availability of alternative venues, including Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground.

Traders have raised concerns about the impact of demonstrations on businesses and workers in surrounding areas. One group reportedly cited substantial disruption near Ramlila Maidan during the festive season, arguing that prolonged protests had affected commercial activity.

Centre Flags Protests Beyond Permitted Duration

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that permission for certain demonstrations, including one held in July, had been granted for a day, but the protesters continued occupying the site beyond the permitted period.

He also argued that marches towards Parliament or the Supreme Court without prior permission could not be treated like demonstrations at ordinary public venues.

Representing traders, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi highlighted the economic consequences of prolonged protests on nearby markets, businesses and daily-wage workers.

The bench directed the Centre and other parties to file their responses. It also asked the traders to implead the organisations that had organised the demonstrations in the proceedings.

Supreme Court Reiterates Balance Between Protest And Public Rights

The observations are in line with the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in the Shaheen Bagh protest case, in which it held that the right to peaceful protest is an important democratic right but does not permit the indefinite occupation of public spaces.

The court had emphasised that the right to protest must be balanced with the rights of other citizens, including their freedom of movement and access to public areas.

The hearing in the present matter was ongoing, with the bench seeking further responses from the Centre and other parties on the issues raised in the petitions.