The Supreme Court has observed that the right to protest must be balanced with the right of others to trade and earn a livelihood, while stressing that no individual or group can occupy a designated protest site indefinitely. A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, made the observations on November 3 while hearing a batch of petitions arising from protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The Court also directed traders’ associations seeking compensation for alleged business losses to add the protest organisers as parties to their plea, saying their response was necessary before the claims could be considered. At the same time, the Bench continued examining allegations of police excesses, detentions, surveillance and restrictions on protesters, making clear that the competing claims would need to be considered together.
Right To Protest, Not Indefinitely
The Bench stressed that permission to protest at a designated venue cannot become an open-ended right to occupy that space. CJI Surya Kant observed that designated protest sites should be allotted for a specified period so that farmers, workers, trade unions, journalists and other groups can also exercise their right to demonstrate.
The Court’s remarks came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that permission for a July 20 protest had been granted for one day, but the protesters allegedly remained at the site for 17 days and later marched towards Parliament without permission. The Court said permission orders should clearly specify the conditions and duration of a protest. These were observations during the hearing, rather than a final ruling establishing a new legal prohibition on protests.
Traders Flag Festive Losses
Appearing for traders, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court that protests had severely affected businesses during the festive season, claiming that shops had remained closed and commercial activity in Connaught Place had been badly hit.
He said traders had suffered losses running into thousands of crores and sought a halt to protests and dharnas for two months, citing the importance of the festive trading period. Traders had previously claimed that protests, barricading and traffic restrictions had affected business by around ₹2,000 crore, though the figure has not been independently established.
The Court did not make any finding confirming the claimed losses. Instead, Chief Justice Surya Kant directed the traders to implead the organisations, NGOs, social entities and political groups that had organised the protests, saying their response was necessary before the Court could adjudicate the grievances.
Police Action Faces Scrutiny
The hearing is not limited to the impact on businesses. Several petitions before the Court allege mass detentions, excessive police action, barricading, restrictions on movement, internet disruption and other measures during the protests. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy referred to the alleged detention of around 7,000 people, asking whether protesters were not also being made to “bleed” as a democracy.
Solicitor General Mehta disputed the characterisation, saying the people had been removed from the protest site rather than detained. Another lawyer argued that police barricades and directions to shut shops could themselves have contributed to the disruption experienced by businesses. The Court is therefore considering competing accounts rather than accepting either side’s version as established fact.
Jantar Mantar Dispute
The hearing also touches on the Delhi Police’s decision to denotify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site and identify Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground as alternative venues. Delhi Police has defended the change, while petitioners have questioned whether restricting Jantar Mantar leaves protesters with adequate spaces to demonstrate.
The Indian Express reported that the denotification followed the July protests and that the Court is separately examining the broader dispute over protest venues. The Supreme Court has not endorsed the police decision as a final determination; the issue remains part of the pending proceedings.
Surveillance Under Court Lens
The Bench is also examining allegations that Delhi Police used CCTV footage and facial-recognition technology to identify protesters. Advocate Prashant Bhushan sought details of what surveillance was being conducted and the legal framework governing it.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned whether the use of technology to identify individuals from large databases could raise privacy concerns, particularly when collected footage is matched against existing government data. The Court issued notice on the issue, meaning the legal questions around surveillance remain open for consideration.
Nine Categories For Hearing
Given the range of issues involved, the Supreme Court has divided the connected petitions into nine broad categories for separate consideration. They include allegations concerning police action and detentions, surveillance, restrictions on public spaces and access to courts, among other issues.
The Bench has also indicated that fresh petitions raising matters already under consideration should not ordinarily be entertained unless they involve a genuinely new and distinct issue. A separate plea concerning alleged harassment of women journalists has been listed for November 23.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Peaceful protest is fundamental to a democracy because citizens must have the freedom to question those in power and demand accountability. But that freedom should coexist with the rights of people who are not part of a demonstration — including daily-wage workers, hawkers, traders, commuters and residents whose livelihoods depend on public spaces remaining accessible.
At the same time, authorities must ensure that restrictions on protests are lawful, proportionate and transparent, and allegations of excessive police action must be independently examined rather than dismissed. The way forward lies not in choosing between protest and livelihood, but in creating enough space for both through dialogue, responsible organising and accountable policing. Can India build a protest framework that protects the right to dissent while ensuring that no other citizen is forced to bear an unfair cost?
Also Read: Delhi Police Files FIR Against Prashant Bhushan Over Sharing Doctored Lavrov Video
