The Supreme Court on Tuesday said no individual, group or organisation could claim an indefinite right to occupy a designated protest site, emphasising that others too have an equal constitutional right to use the same public space to raise their grievances.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant was hearing a batch of petitions arising from the October protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

"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," CJI Kant said.

 The court also highlighted the losses suffered by daily-wage workers because of the protests, pointing to the need to balance competing constitutional rights.

"There are conflicting claims. 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. Where does that person go for their daily bread?" CJI Kant said.

The CJI further referred to competing claims among protesters seeking to highlight different causes, observing that one group could not prevent others from using a designated protest site.

Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that permission for the July protest had been granted for only one day, but the Jantar Mantar site remained occupied for a longer period. He also said the protesters had subsequently marched towards Parliament without obtaining permission.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for traders, submitted that businesses had suffered losses running into thousands of crores and sought a two-month restriction on protests, particularly during the festive season. The traders' counsel claimed that shops in areas around the protest sites, including Connaught Place, remained shut, with little commercial activity.

The top court issued notice seeking a halt to protests during the festive period. However, it directed the traders' associations to implead the organisers of the anti-CEC protests as parties, observing that it could not fully adjudicate their grievances otherwise.

Surveillance during protests

The court also issued notice on a petition questioning the legal framework governing facial recognition surveillance and the use and security of the data collected through it. It agreed to hear separately, after Diwali, a plea concerning the alleged harassment of women journalists and a request for a separate investigative committee.

Lawyers' bodies raised concerns over the detention of advocates, internet disruptions and restrictions on access to courts and chambers. Petitions concerning alleged assault, detention, seizure of devices and police action against journalists, including contempt proceedings, were also taken up.

The top court decided to divide the connected petitions into nine categories for separate hearings and sought proposed sequences of arguments and time estimates from counsel.