The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that protestors cannot perpetually occupy a protest site, adding that such sites can be occupied only for a specified period to allow other groups to use them.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana 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 referred to the losses suffered by daily wagers because of the protests.

"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.

CJI Kant further referred to the competing claims among protestors intending to highlight varying causes.

"You must also find out why further time is not being granted. 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 you have occupied the site. You cannot say that because you have occupied it, you will not allow others," he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest in July was permitted only for one day but they remained there 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 of India and protest without permission," he said.

Traders allege protest cause losses

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for traders, claimed that there was a revenue loss of ₹2,000 crore due to the protests. He said that Ramlila Maidan, the designated site for protests in the national capital, is about a mile from Connaught Place.

"Within one mile of Ramlila Maidan, you have millions of people living there and all kinds of wholesale markets. There is Asaf Ali Road, Daryaganj, Turkman Gate, Kamla Market, and then it joins Jama Masjid. All of this is within one mile. At least 50 lakh people live there. 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," he said.

Rohatgi also referred to the losses suffered by traders during the festive season.

"If you do not sell during the festive season, the losses are enormous. There are millions of workers, ancillary workers, tempo operators, labourers and loaders who are affected," he said.

Justice Bagchi said whether the loss of business can be attributed only to the protestors when the State also imposes restrictions on roads.

"Can the lack of sales be attributed only to the protests? The economy may also be in a particular position. Barricades are also placed on the streets. What if the State forces shops to close?," the Court said.

In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said,

"They forced the shops to close. There are situations where protests become violent."

He added that there cannot be a call for protest without official permission.

"The result is loss of livelihood to others. And then you start shouting in the court, saying nothing can be done against us. But a protest site is one thing. Calling for a protest without permission and asking lakhs of people to march towards Parliament is another," Mehta said.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan submitted that Ramlila Maidan is a designated site for protest.

"But it is a notified site for protest. Jantar Mantar was relocated. Now you have a problem with Ramlila Ground also. So where should people protest?," he said.

Surveillance during protests

Advocate Prashant Bhushan said the authorities need to inform the Court about the kind of surveillance taking place during the protests and under which legislative framework the surveillance was taking place.

"There is a right to privacy in a public place, even when you are protesting publicly," he said.

Mehta responded that there was only "CCTV surveillance" during the protests.

"There are 500 to 600 influencers recording live, and they are objecting to government CCTV," he said.

The Court said a protection of privacy may not be possible in a public place.

"The most relevant interjection here is reasonable expectation of privacy. When I am standing in a public place, what is my reasonable expectation of privacy? I cannot choose to go in public and say that my privacy must be protected."

[Read Live Coverage]