The Supreme Court declined to restrain the Cockroach Janata Party’s September 5 Delhi protest, saying it can’t presume anything untoward will happen and that law and order is for the police to handle.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to pass any order restraining a protest march announced by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) on September 5 in Delhi, observing that it could not “presume anything untoward will happen” and that the maintenance of law and order was squarely within the domain of the Central Government and the Delhi Police [application in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice on the application to the Centre and the Delhi Police, but refused to list the matter before the date of the proposed march posting it instead to September 10, to be heard along with the other pending matters relating to the student protests declining the applicant’s repeated requests for an earlier hearing.
The application: a plea to restrain the march
The application was moved by a retired Delhi police officer, Rajendra Singh, who sought a direction that large-scale demonstrations or protest marches not be held in sensitive areas of the national capital without the requisite permissions. Appearing for him, advocate Dr. Rizan Ahmed submitted that, to his knowledge, the organisers had not filed any application seeking permission for the September 5 march, and urged that it be postponed.
Ahmed placed particular emphasis on the timing, pointing to a major international summit due to be held in Delhi and the presence of the international media. He submitted that the march ought to wait until the event had concluded, questioning the urgency of the protest:
“On 12th and 13th, international dignitaries are coming to the capital. What happened at the AI Summit? People stripped and danced… my submission is postpone the march till 15th of this month. Is the demand urgent? Is the police conducting raids against people? Whatever CJP is doing… can’t they wait till the BRICS summit to end?”
‘We will presume everybody will behave in a peaceful manner’
The Chief Justice was unpersuaded that the Court should act pre-emptively to restrain a protest that had not yet taken place, or on the assumption that it would turn violent. He observed:
“We will at least, as of now, presume everybody will behave in a peaceful manner. Right now there is no compelling circumstance to assume that any untoward thing will happen.”
When Ahmed countered that “presumption comes out of experience,” invoking the violence that had accompanied the CJP’s July 20 march towards Parliament and warning of the risk of a fresh “mishap… maybe by some mischievous elements,” the Chief Justice reiterated that the matter fell ultimately to be considered by the police authorities. The exchange reflects a settled principle of the Court’s approach to the right to protest that an assembly cannot be prohibited in advance merely on the apprehension that it may become disorderly, the appropriate course being for the authorities to regulate it and act against any actual breach of the law, rather than for a court to foreclose the assembly at the threshold.
‘Approach the government and the police’
The Bench was firm that the relief sought lay outside the judicial domain and within the executive’s responsibility for law and order. The Chief Justice told the applicant that it was for the Union and the Government of NCT of Delhi to maintain order and to act in accordance with law:
“Before us, there is no identified group. You please impress upon Union or NCT Delhi. It’s for them to maintain law and order. They should act as per law.”
Ahmed pressed his concerns further, submitting that the group was conducting itself as though the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) did not apply to it, and that the nation might “pay a heavy price” if necessary action were not taken. In a sharply-worded submission, he contended that the organisers would not seek permission and were emboldened by the earlier protest:
“They have tasted blood. They won’t seek permission. Police will stop. This is what they want in front of international media.”
These are the submissions of the applicant, advanced in support of his plea, and were not findings of the Court. The Chief Justice responded that the Court could not issue directions against a group that was not a party before it “We are not calling upon anyone who is not party before us. Approach the central government” to which Ahmed submitted that the CJP could not be made a party as it had no registered office or letterhead.
ALSO READ: TMC Bank Accounts: Calcutta High Court Declines Further Relief On Four Frozen Accounts
The backdrop: the CJP’s grievance
The proposed march itself arises from the same cluster of events that has generated the wider student-protest litigation. The Cockroach Janata Party has announced the September 5 protest alleging that the Centre has failed to honour a commitment to drop the cases registered against students who took part in the July protest over the examination-paper leak the agitation that culminated in the July 20 march towards Parliament and the allegations of police excess now being examined by a court-appointed committee.
By declining to restrain the march while directing the applicant to the executive, the Court has kept a consistent line across the protest litigation: it has been willing to scrutinise the policing of protests and to protect peaceful protesters, but has been reluctant to place prior restraints on the act of protest itself, treating the regulation of a specific assembly as a matter for the police under the law rather than for pre-emptive judicial prohibition. The decision to tag the application with the main protest matters on September 10 also signals that the Court intends to deal with the interlinked issues the FIRs, the alleged excesses, and the recurring protests through the single, structured mechanism it has already set in motion.
What lies ahead
With notice issued and the matter listed for September 10, the immediate question of the September 5 march is left to be handled by the Delhi Police and the Central Government in the exercise of their law-and-order powers. Nothing has been finally decided; the Court has neither permitted nor prohibited the march, but has declined to intervene in advance, leaving the regulation of the assembly to the executive and reserving the broader issues for its scheduled hearing.
For the Applicant (Rajendra Singh): Dr. Rizan Ahmed, Adv.