No one can claim indefinite right to occupy designated protest site: SC

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said no one can occupy a site indefinitely to hold a protest and even the designated sites for such activity should have a definite time period. The observations came during a hearing on the protest in central Delhi's Jantar Mantar last month and the recent one at Ramlila Maidan organised by the Opposition parties and others against the Election Commission of India. The tag of a designated protest site was removed from Jantar Mantar by the government and three alternative sites including Ramlila Maidan were announced.
“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.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that whoever gives the call for a protest should take responsibility for any consequence as a result of their actions.Mehta informed the Supreme Court that permission for the July 20 protest was given only for one day, but the protesters occupied the place and even marched to parliament."Parliament is not just another political building. You cannot march to parliament. You cannot march to the Supreme Court," he said.
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 because of the demonstrations, particularly during the festive season. 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. 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 proceedings also covered petitions raising concerns over police action during the July demonstrations, including alleged illegal detentions, the use of facial recognition technology and surveillance of protesters. The court noted nine categories of issues arising from the petitions and allowed the Centre and Delhi Police to file their responses either during the day or shortly thereafte