Right to protest cannot override right to livelihood: SC calls for balance

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday underscored the need to balance the constitutionally recognised right to protest with the right to trade and earn a livelihood, including that of daily-wage workers. It observed that no group can claim indefinite occupation of a designated protest site at the cost of others.

A three-member bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said public spaces earmarked for demonstrations must be allotted for specified periods to enable different groups to exercise their right to protest without disrupting the livelihoods of others. "You cannot occupy a site for all times to come. 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," CJI Kant orally observed.

The court directed traders' associations, which have alleged business losses of around Rs 2,000 crore due to the protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar, to implead the organisers, organisations and political entities behind the demonstrations. During the hearing, the Centre and Delhi Police defended the restrictions at protest venues. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said a demonstration permitted for one day in July continued for 17 days. In a counter-affidavit, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar said an MHA committee had unanimously recommended that Jantar Mantar was no longer suitable for protests. The committee suggested Ramlila Maidan, CBD Ground and Burari Ground as alternatives. He also pointed out that 78 foreign diplomatic establishments, 99 central government offices and Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital are located within a radius of 3-4 km of the site.


In another counter-affidavit, Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Surender Kumar said former West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee and five TMC leaders were not detained but were removed from South Avenue on October 10 for allegedly violating prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS. Delhi Police urged the court to dismiss the habeas corpus petition as infructuous.

Delhi Police also defended its actions during the October 10 protests, citing alleged violence during the July demonstrations and subsequent protests on October 6, 7 and 8. It claimed that the demonstrations had disrupted traffic and that police personnel were injured while handling the protesters. The police maintained that its actions were necessary to maintain law and order and ensure public safety.

The bench directed that the connected petitions be divided into nine categories and listed separately.