Will intervene if protests, security curbs affect Connaught Place businesses: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it would intervene if frequent protests and security restrictions around Connaught Place adversely affected businesses and livelihoods, expressing concern over the hardship faced by small shopkeepers, hawkers and stall owners during the festive season.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a plea concerning the New Delhi Municipal Council's (NDMC) decision to close Central Park in Connaught Place for two days ahead of a proposed protest by CJP.

"Some action may be needed. Some directions. We know that all small shopkeepers, hawkers and stall owners earn their livelihood during these days. And we know the hardship, difficulty and crisis faced by their families," CJI Kant verbally observed.


Also Read | Abhijeet Dipke, Neha Bora detained by Delhi Police ahead of 'Lehra Do Tiranga' protest at Connaught Place

Justice Bagchi said the court could exercise its powers under the doctrine of constitutional tort if businesses suffered losses on account of unlawful restrictions. "If there's a loss of business, and we hold that it is unlawful to your clients, we will exercise our powers under constitutional tort jurisdiction," Justice Bagchi said, adding that the court will cross that bridge when the situation arises.

The bench highlighted the competing interests involved, including the right to protest, the livelihood of traders and the authorities' responsibility to maintain law and order. "Someone wants to protest, someone wants to sell 'mungfali', someone wants law and order. All these are related," Justice Bagchi remarked.

The matter arose from NDMC's decision to shut Central Park on October 16 and 17 ahead of the CJP's proposed 'Lehra Do Tiranga' demonstration. The petitioners raised concerns that the closure and associated security restrictions could adversely affect commercial activity in Connaught Place.

The bench acknowledged the difficulties faced by traders whose earnings depend on daily business and indicated that appropriate directions could be considered if the restrictions were found to be unlawful and caused financial losses.

The observations came amid heightened scrutiny of restrictions imposed around protest sites in the national capital. The court did not immediately order the reopening of Central Park or issue any direction restraining the proposed demonstration. It indicated that the matter could be taken up after the Dussehra break.

The bench's observations underscored the need to balance the right to peaceful protest and legitimate security concerns.