Supreme Court questions prolonged protest site occupation in Delhi as traders report business losses and petitions raise concerns over police action.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the prolonged occupation of a protest site in New Delhi, observing that no group can claim exclusive access to a public space indefinitely. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said other sections of society, including farmers, workers, trade unions and homeless people, also have the right to use public spaces for demonstrations. The remarks came during a hearing involving protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, where multiple petitions have raised allegations of illegal detentions, assaults on protesters and journalists, and restrictions on public transport.

“You cannot occupy a site for all time to come,” Chief Justice Surya Kant observed during the proceedings. He questioned where other groups would organise demonstrations if one set of protesters continued occupying the same location. Referring to farmers, workers, trade unions and homeless people, the Chief Justice stressed that the right to protest extends to everyone.

The observation highlights a wider question surrounding public demonstrations in the national capital: how should authorities balance the constitutional right to peaceful protest with the rights of residents, commuters and businesses affected by prolonged demonstrations?

The hearing also brought the economic consequences of the protests into focus. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing on behalf of a traders' association in Delhi, told the court that demonstrations had disrupted commercial activity in several areas, including Connaught Place. He argued that shopkeepers were suffering financial losses because businesses had remained closed during the festive season.

According to Rohatgi, declining sales and interruptions to normal commercial operations had affected traders who depend on daily customer movement. The association sought judicial intervention to stop the protests during the festive period, arguing that continued demonstrations were damaging local businesses and the livelihoods of people working in the affected areas.

Taking up the traders' concerns, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and other respondents on their petition seeking restrictions on the protests against the Chief Election Commissioner. The notice does not amount to a final decision on the demands. The matter will require further consideration after the concerned authorities respond.

The court is simultaneously examining several petitions concerning the conduct of law enforcement agencies during the demonstrations. These petitions allege that protesters were illegally detained and assaulted. Separate allegations concern the treatment of journalists covering the protests, raising questions about press freedom and the ability of reporters to document public demonstrations without interference.

The protests were organised against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations concerning irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission. The allegations form part of the wider dispute surrounding the institution's functioning. The petitions before the court focus on the actions taken by authorities during the demonstrations and the restrictions imposed on public movement.

The proceedings also involve a contempt petition concerning restrictions on metro and train services. The petitioners have alleged that certain measures introduced during the protests violated earlier judicial directions intended to protect public movement and ensure that transport services continued operating normally.

In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court directed law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital evidence collected during the protests. The direction was intended to protect material that could help establish what happened during the demonstrations and assess allegations of unlawful police action.

The court had also issued directions on October 11, asking authorities to prevent illegal detentions, maintain the free and smooth movement of people, and ensure that metro and train services operated normally. Internet services were also expected to remain uninterrupted, subject to lawful restrictions required for maintaining public order.

A bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana had previously conducted a special sitting to consider petitions challenging restrictions imposed during the demonstrations. These included complaints about limitations on metro and train movement and the detention of protesters, including political leaders.

The bench observed that a prima facie case of contempt required examination and issued notices to the Centre, Delhi Police and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The respondents were asked to submit affidavits and compliance reports explaining the measures taken and their adherence to the court's earlier directions.

The latest hearing brings competing public interests into sharper focus. Protesters have the right to express dissent and assemble peacefully, while traders, commuters and residents also have legitimate interests in accessing public spaces and continuing their daily activities.

The Supreme Court's observations do not settle the broader dispute. However, they underline that the right to protest cannot automatically translate into permanent control over a public location. The court will now have to consider the allegations of police misconduct, the concerns of traders and the responsibilities of authorities in managing demonstrations without unnecessarily restricting fundamental rights.