No group can occupy protest site indefinitely, the Supreme Court has said, adding that farmers, workers and trade unions need the same space; it issued notice on the traders’ plea but asked them to bring the protest organisers on record.
New Delhi: Issuing notice on a traders’ plea that seeks a halt to protests during the festive season, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally observed that the constitutional right to protest cannot extend to the indefinite occupation of a designated protest site. The remarks came in a batch of petitions arising from the October protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar [MA Baby v. Union of India and Others].
The matters were heard by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. They include pleas by traders over business losses and petitions alleging police excesses, detentions and restrictions during the demonstrations.
What the notice covers
The Court issued notice on the plea of the Kirana Committee Delhi seeking a halt to protests during the festive period. It directed the traders’ associations to implead the organisers of the protests, noting that the grievance could not be fully decided in their absence. Notice was also issued on a petition questioning the legal framework for facial recognition surveillance and the use and security of the data collected, and the Bench agreed to hear a plea on alleged harassment of women journalists separately, after Diwali.
To manage the load, the Bench decided to divide the connected petitions into nine categories for separate hearings and sought arguing sequences and time estimates from counsel. It indicated that fresh writ petitions would not ordinarily be entertained unless the Advocate-on-Record certified that they raised an entirely new issue.
Sites for fixed periods, for every group
According to the Bench, protest sites must be allotted for identified periods so that every group gets to use them. CJI Surya Kant remarked:
“You cannot occupy a site for all times 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 CJI described the Court’s task as one of weighing conflicting claims: the right to protest on one side, and the right to trade and earn a livelihood, including that of daily-wage workers, on the other.
“The right to protest is also a constitutionally recognised right, as is the right to trade and carry on business. 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.”
The Solicitor General and the traders
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Cockroach Janta Party had been permitted a one-day protest in July, yet the site stayed occupied for 17 days, and that protesters later marched towards Parliament without permission. Calling for a protest without permission, he told the Court, was a different matter from using a designated protest site.
Appearing for the traders, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi claimed a revenue loss of about Rs 2,000 crore because of the protests and said around 50 lakh people live within a mile of Ramlila Maidan. He sought restrictions on protests during the festive season and urged the government to frame a scheme for protest sites in Delhi and other State capitals.
Where the Bench and the petitioners pressed
Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked whether the fall in sales could be put down to the protests alone, noting that the economy and the State’s own barricading of streets could also affect business. The Solicitor General replied that shops had been forced to close and that some protests turned violent.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan pointed out that Ramlila Maidan is itself a notified protest site after Jantar Mantar was relocated, and asked where people should protest if that site too is objected to. Advocate Prashant Bhushan asked the Court to require the authorities to disclose the nature of surveillance used during the protests and the legal framework for it. The Solicitor General said there was only CCTV surveillance, and the Bench observed that the relevant test is the reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
Other petitioners alleged unlawful detentions, custodial assault, barricading and excessive police action during the October protests. These allegations are yet to be examined by the Court.
Why the hearing matters
The right to assemble peaceably under Article 19(1)(b) is subject to reasonable restrictions, and the Supreme Court has earlier held that public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely for protest. Tuesday’s observations apply that idea to designated protest sites, framing the question as one of fair access among competing groups rather than a bar on protest.
At the same time, the Court has kept alive the petitioners’ allegations of police excess, detentions and surveillance, and has asked the traders to bring the organisers on record before it decides any restriction. The observations are oral and the Court has not yet ruled on the merits of any petition.
Case Title: MA Baby v. Union of India and Others, with connected matters
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1333 of 2026 and connected matters
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union; Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi for traders; Senior Advocates Indira Jaising, N. Hariharan, Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, C.U. Singh and P.V. Dinesh and Advocate Prashant Bhushan for petitioners challenging police action; Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani for a petitioner seeking an SOP on participation of foreigners in protests