Demonstrations generates ‘protest economy’, SC tells Delhi traders

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed sympathy for the right to livelihood of the small traders, hawkers, push cart vendors, but said their right competed with the right to expression of the protestors

The Supreme Court on Tuesday remarked to Delhi traders that protests are not entirely hostile to business, pointing out that there is also “protest economy” that generates brisk earnings for enterprising hawkers and vendors at demonstration sites.

A Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant expressed sympathy for the right to livelihood of the small traders, hawkers, push cart vendors, but said their right competed with the right to expression of the protestors.

The court was responding to a petition filed by Kirana Committee Delhi that protests are “bleeding” the traders of Delhi dry during the two months of peak festive season around Dussehra and Deepavali.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the national capital’s traders, said even the Ramlila Grounds, the re-designated protest site after Jantar Mantar, was only a mile away from the iconic shopping and commercial hub of Connaught Place (CP) in the national capital.

Rohatgi even detailed the one-mile route from CP and through Minto Road to Ramlila Grounds, saying the latter was not as far as everyone thought from the business centre in the heart of the capital city.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench, said the court would take. Rohatgi’s word for it as he was “the son of the soil of Delhi”.

“We have lost thousands of crores. Nobody is able to do business in Connaught Place. Thousands of auxiliary workers connected to these businesses are without a jobs as sales is down in the middle of the festive season,” Rohatgi said.

Peaceful demonstration

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, referred to how the Cockroach Janta Party-linked NEET-UG paper leak protestors had sought permission for a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar only for a day on June 20, but had refused to leave. The demonstration had ultimately culminated in violence after the protestors took out a ‘Sansad Chalo’ march to the Parliament on July 20 without taking any permission from the authorities.

“Everybody has a right to protest… But everybody must adhere to conditions of permission. You cannot occupy a protest site indefinitely. There are other protestors too… Where will they go?” Kant asked.

Mehta submitted that the organisers of protests or bandh calls must take responsibility for the losses caused to others.

Senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for CPI(M) State Secretary M A Baby along with advocate Subhash Chandran, questioned whether the authorities were suddenly having second thoughts about designating Ramlila Grounds as a designate site now.

“So, where are we supposed to protest now as citizens? Protest is a democratic process. At every protest site, there are push cart vendors, hawkers and small traders doing business... Democracy works like that,” senior advocate P V Dinesh, appearing for the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, submitted.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that essentials like food and water usually are supplied to protestors at the site by hawkers and vendors.

“There would be ample food… There is a protest economy… Like in melas, there is a lot of business done… ‘Mela economy’,” Bagchi observed orally.

Bagchi asked the traders whether they had made the protest organisers in their case.. Rohatgi replied in the negative, while calling for a two-month ban on protests during the festive season.

The court issued notice on the plea, also seconded by the New Delhi Traders Association, but refused to pass any interim order without hearing the other stakeholder — the protest organisers.

Referring to the recent Paris protests, Rohatgi highlighted the risk of violence. “In some parts of the world, protests have led to a huge amount of violence,” he said.

Senior advocates Menaka Guruswamy and Arundhati Katju, said the only violence which emanated from protests in Delhi came from the side of the police. Hariharan said even the Delhi Police was “on strike” on November 2, referring to a demonstration by police personnel outside Delhi Police Headquarters at ITO, led by Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Manasvi Vashistha.

“Rohatgi said about ‘bleeding’. There were 7,000 illegal detentions [during the anti-CEC protests on October 10-11]... Are we not bleeding?” Guruswamy submitted.

Mehta objected, saying those were not ‘detentions’, but ‘removals’.

In separate petitions, in one of which Guruswamy was herself a petitioner-in-person and another filed by Rajya Sabha MP A A Rahim, deployment of facial recognition technology and allied mass-surveillance measures by the Delhi Police against students and protestors.

“Right to privacy while protesting in public places? What kind of petitions are being filed? What about safety of women… There are over 500 influencers videographing protestors, yet they are objecting to the government?” Mr. Mehta questioned the privacy argument.

The Solicitor General said the apex court has ruled that ‘legitimate State interest’ was an exception to the right to privacy.

Bagchi said there was also, on the other hand, a “reasonable expectation of privacy” to balance the State’s interests.

“You have said the technology is used to identify criminals after comparing inputs received with the National Crime Records Bureau data. The question here is whether using facial and iris recognition amounts to legitimate State interest?” Bagchi addressed the government side.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising reiterated the plea for setting up a committee headed by a woman and Special Investigation Team to examine grievances of sexual abuse faced by women journalists during the anti-CEC protests. eom

Published on November 3, 2026