New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked a traders' body to make INDIA bloc parties respondents in its plea seeking to halt protests at Delhi's Ramlila Maidan during the festive season affecting their businesses, saying such sites cannot be occupied for "all times to come".
The top court also asked the Congress and its leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi to file their replies on a plea by a female journalist, alleging that the leader of opposition in Lok Sabha had pushed her during a protest on the apex court premises.
The top court was hearing a litany of petitions, including the one filed by the traders and on issues of alleged mass detention, police brutalities, closure of Metro stations and internet shutdown during the recent protests in the capital.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing the Congress, Gandhi and Kharge, to file their replies to the petition by the female journalist.
At the outset, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Kirana Committee Delhi, submitted, “I represent all the trading associations in Delhi… All shops remain closed, there's nobody in Connaught Place today.
“If you don't sell during the festive season, our sales are down. If you don't sell during the festive season, our people are bleeding. My request is - they must look at some out of the box solutions.”
CJI Kant said, “You can't occupy a protest site for all times to come. There are other protesters. Where will farmers, journalists, lawyers, etc., go? Where will the trade unions go? Where will the homeless go? Everyone has the right to protest. Designated time must be given for a designated period.”
Stressing the need to balance the right to protest with the right to trade and earn a livelihood, particularly for daily-wage workers, the bench said there are conflicting claims and both the right to protest and the right to trade and carry on business are constitutionally recognised rights.
“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 his daily bread?,” CJI Kant said.
Rohatgi submitted that businesses have suffered losses running into thousands of crores and sought a two-month restriction on protests, especially during the festive season.
“You have millions of people living and all kinds of wholesale markets within one mile of Ramlila Maidan… Around 50 lakh people live in areas around the protest site and shops in places like Connaught Place remained shut with little commercial activity due to the agitations.
“The government must now think and come out with a scheme, whether for Delhi or other state capitals. This is no longer merely about Jantar Mantar,” Rohatgi said.
Appearing in the matter, senior advocate N Hariharan submitted that Ramlila Maidan was a designated site for protests.
“It is a notified site for protests. Jantar Mantar was relocated. Now you have a problem with Ramlila Maidan also. So where should people protest?,” he said.
The bench said, “There may be another request for another protest. There may be one site or two, but everybody has a right to protest… You cannot exclude other people merely because one party has occupied the site. You cannot say that because you have occupied it, you will not allow others.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, said the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) protest in July was permitted only for one day but they remained there (Jantar Mantar) for 17 days.
“Then, without obtaining permission, they marched towards Parliament. Parliament is not just a political building. It is a symbol of the sovereignty of India. You cannot be permitted to go to Parliament. You cannot be permitted to go to the Supreme Court and protest without permission,” Mehta said.
The top court issued a notice on the plea by the Kirana Committee Delhi seeking to halt protests during the festive period but directed the traders' associations to implead the organisers of the anti-CEC protests at the Ramlila Maidan, be it political parties, social organisations or NGOs, as parties to the petition, noting that it could not fully adjudicate the grievances otherwise.
It also issued a notice on a petition questioning the legal framework for facial recognition surveillance and the use and security of the collected data.
The bench also agreed to hear a plea concerning alleged harassment of women journalists separately on November 23, and a request for a separate investigative committee.
It said the plea by a female journalist seeking action against Congress leaders, who allegedly pushed her, be also listed on the same day.
CJI Kant flagged that numerous petitions are being filed on the same issues, which are already being adjudicated by the court, and said he was contemplating to issue a direction to the apex court registry to not to accept such petitions unless an advocate-on-record gives in writing that the issue sought to be raised was different from those already sub-judice.
The bench said that from next time, it will be hearing the batch of petitions related to protests and alleged police brutalities in nine broad categories and fix a separate date for hearing each.
On October 15, the bench sought responses from the Election Commission and others on a plea filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 12 opposition leaders over alleged large-scale voter deletions and SIR irregularities.
