The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday issued formal notices to the Union government and other relevant respondents as it began hearing a series of petitions challenging the Delhi Police’s crackdown on ongoing protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The proceedings, presided over by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and JV Mohana, addressed the contentious balance between the constitutional right to protest and the necessity of keeping public spaces accessible to citizens.
During the hearing, the court underscored that while the right to protest is fundamental, it is not absolute. The Chief Justice remarked that public protest sites cannot be occupied by any group indefinitely, noting that the judicial system must consider the needs of other citizens, including farmers and journalists, who may also require access to such spaces. The bench emphasized that any permission granted for demonstrations must clearly outline specific conditions, including defined timeframes for the assembly.
The litigation also incorporated concerns raised by the Kirana Committee Delhi, which has sought a moratorium on protests within the national capital during the festive season. Representing the traders' associations, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that large-scale demonstrations in areas like Connaught Place have forced shops to shutter, leading to significant financial losses during a critical period for commerce. Rohatgi contended that the situation warrants an unconventional approach to urban management, noting that the issue extends beyond the mere availability of Jantar Mantar as a protest venue.
The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, reiterated that the administration maintains that Jantar Mantar functions as a public road and is not intended for long-term or indefinite occupation. In response to questions regarding official orders, Mehta stated that the government’s submissions covered various categories, including habeas corpus petitions and matters involving journalists and legal professionals. However, counsel for the petitioners, including Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, insisted that specific orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) had not yet been properly placed on record for their review.
Tensions during the court session also flared over allegations of police conduct. Senior Advocate Arundhati Katju questioned the attribution of business losses solely to the protesters, while Senior Advocate Hariharan pointed to reports of police personnel themselves staging a demonstration at Jantar Mantar without facing the same restrictions applied to other groups. Further allegations of violence committed by the Delhi Police during the crackdown were raised by the petitioners’ legal team, prompting a sharp exchange regarding the actions of security forces.
As the bench looked toward a resolution, Justice Bagchi inquired whether the organizers of the various protests had been formally named as parties to the current proceedings. The Court subsequently directed the petitioners to implead all involved organizations, observing that it would be procedurally improper to arrive at a definitive conclusion without providing the protest organizers an opportunity to present their side of the argument.
The matter remains ongoing as the Court seeks to establish a framework that addresses the competing interests of commercial stakeholders, the administration’s security concerns, and the rights of demonstrators. The proceedings are expected to continue as the parties prepare to address the court's directive regarding the involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the dispute.
Comments