New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday orally observed that the right to protest cannot be exercised by occupying a designated protest site indefinitely, stressing that such places must be allotted for specified periods to ensure that other groups also get an opportunity to exercise their constitutional rights.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made the observations while hearing a batch of petitions arising from the October protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
“You cannot occupy a site for all time to come. There are other protesters. 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,” the apex court remarked.
It further observed that protest sites must be made available to different groups for designated periods, adding that no organisation could claim an exclusive right over a public space merely because it had occupied it first.
“There may be one site or two, but everybody has a right to protest. You cannot exclude other people merely because you have occupied the site,” the CJI-led Bench said.
During the hearing, the top court called for a balance between the right to protest and the right to carry on trade and business, particularly keeping in view the livelihood concerns of daily-wage workers, street vendors and small shopkeepers.
Referring to the impact of protests on traders and daily-wage workers, the Supreme Court observed that the right to protest had to be balanced against the right to trade and earn a livelihood.
“If shops are closed because of protests, where will the shopkeepers and street vendors earn their livelihood? We are not talking about trade merely in terms of commercial establishments. We are talking about the source of livelihood of a daily-wage worker. Where does that person go for their daily bread?” the apex court asked.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that permission for the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) protest in July had been granted for only one day, but the protesters continued occupying the site for 17 days.
He further submitted that the protesters had subsequently marched towards Parliament without obtaining the requisite permission, adding that public places and institutions such as Parliament and the Supreme Court could not be used for demonstrations without authorisation.
The Supreme Court also issued notice on a plea filed by the Kirana Committee Delhi seeking a halt to protests during the festive period. However, it directed the traders’ associations to implead the organisers of the anti-CEC protests as parties to the proceedings, observing that their grievances could not be fully adjudicated in their absence.
The hearing also witnessed arguments over the use of facial recognition technology by the Delhi Police to identify protesters. Advocate Prashant Bhushan raised concerns over the use of facial recognition technology by the police to identify protesters.
SG Mehta countered the submission, arguing that a person participating in a protest at a public place could not claim the same expectation of privacy as in a private setting.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that the government had claimed that certain individuals identified during the protests had criminal antecedents, while questioning whether identifying protesters through NCRB data was permissible under the existing legal framework.
Senior advocate Hariharan submitted that merely because a person had a criminal record, it did not take away his or her right to participate in a peaceful protest. The Solicitor General termed the argument misconceived.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy further submitted that the concern was not limited to the identification of protesters but also involved the collection and storage of their personal information. Responding to the submission, SG Mehta said the police did not initiate action merely on the basis of a match generated by facial recognition software and independently verified the identity of the person concerned before taking any action.
(IANS)
