On the day the Cockroach Janta Party planned its protest, small shopkeepers were told in the Supreme Court that the law has principles to compensate any loss of business; the Kirana Traders’ Mention Against CJP Protest also drew the Chief Justice’s hope that better sense would prevail.
New Delhi: Seeking urgent consideration of their plea against the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) call for protests on October 16, kirana traders mentioned the matter before the Supreme Court on Friday. Their counsel said the coming festive season, which includes Karwa Chauth, Dussehra and Diwali, is the main earning period for small traders. The Court noted that a similar petition is already pending before the Delhi High Court [In Re: Kirana Traders’ Plea Against CJP Protest Call (case title awaited)].
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the mention. At the outset of the mentioning list, CJI Surya Kant had said that no further matters would be listed for the day after the mentionings, since the Benches were overburdened and briefs had already been circulated to the judges.
A hope from the Chief Justice, a reminder from Justice Bagchi
Justice Bagchi first observed that a similar petition was already before the Delhi High Court, but counsel for the traders kept pressing for an early hearing because of the festive season. In response, CJI Surya Kant said:
“We hope that better sense will prevail and these shopkeepers wont suffer.”
Counsel then brought up the NDMC notification closing Central Park in Connaught Place and submitted that trade could not take place there. To this, Justice Bagchi said:
“If there is any loss of business, there are principles in law to compensate you.”
Livelihoods on one side, the right to protest on the other
Justice Bagchi listed the interests the Court had to keep in view: people who wish to protest, vendors selling moongfali, and the authorities responsible for law and order. CJI Surya Kant spoke of small shopkeepers, hawkers and stall owners who earn their living in this period, and acknowledged the hardship faced by their families.
Calling the closure of Central Park by the NDMC a disproportionate restriction, counsel for the traders pressed the point. Justice Bagchi replied that the Court has ample jurisdiction under the law of compensation and public law and will act. That remark does not by itself award any compensation, and no order on the traders’ plea was available at the time of writing.
The protest call at the heart of the dispute
On October 14, CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke put out a social media call, under the banner “Lehra Do Tiranga”, for a gathering at 5 pm on October 16 at Central Park in Connaught Place, which sits above Palika Bazar. According to the CJP, the protest is about alleged electoral fraud, and it seeks the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Speaking to the press on Thursday, Dipke said protesters had been dragged off the streets over the previous 10 to 15 days and that the AAP would join in, and he urged demonstrators to carry the national flag. These are the party’s claims and have not been tested in any court.
The Delhi High Court had already been approached. On Thursday, October 15, a Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma took up two PILs, one by Anil Kumar Gupta, a licensed street vendor at Palika Bazar, and one by local trader Nand Kishore Chugh. Both asked for a direction barring the CJP from protesting at Central Park or anywhere other than a designated protest site, arguing that Connaught Place is not such a site and that the week before Dussehra is a key business period.
Senior Advocate Sacchin Puri relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) and Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), which require protests to be held at designated places without blocking public ways.
The High Court did not bar the protest. It recorded the assurance of Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, that “all possible steps in accordance with law” would be taken to regulate and control the gathering, and it issued notice to Dipke. That evening, the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) announced that Central Park would stay closed to the public on October 16 and 17, citing administrative reasons.
Where the law stands
Both the right to assemble peaceably and without arms under Article 19(1)(b) and the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. Amit Sahni, which arose from the Shaheen Bagh sit-in, held that dissent must be expressed at designated places and that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan called for a balance between protesters and residents rather than a blanket ban. Compensation in public law for losses caused by State action or inaction is a remedy the constitutional courts have recognised under Articles 32 and 226, which is the line of law Justice Bagchi referred to.
Friday’s mention follows by a day the notice the same Bench issued on the batch of pleas arising from the October 10 Delhi protests. The CJP’s call and the traders’ objections remain contested positions, and neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court has ruled on the merits of the protest itself.
Case Title: In Re: Kirana Traders’ Plea Against CJP Protest Call (case title and number awaited)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supreme Court of India
Date of Mention: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Counsel for the kirana traders (name not available)