There cannot be indefinite protests in a common area: SC on Shaheen Bagh

New Delhi: Hearing a plea to clear anti-CAA/NRC protesters from the Shaheen Bagh stretch of the Kalindi Kunj Road in the Capital, the Supreme Court of India on Monday issued a notice to the Central government and remarked that "there cannot be indefinite protests in a common area". Despite repeated requests from the petitioners to issue interim orders citing "inconvenience to public", the bench comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph said the court would like to hear the government's side on the issue first, remarking: "Protests have been going on for 50 days. It can go on a little longer".

The top court was hearing petitions filed by advocate Amit Sahni and Nand Kishore Garg, which sought removal of the protesters from the area as it was cutting off a key road connecting Delhi to Noida and Faridabad. The petitioners argued that due to the "blockade", traffic was being diverted to the Delhi-Noida-Delhi highway, overloading the already busy route connecting the NCR cities.

Justice Kaul remarked that protests can carry on but in an area designated for such a purpose. He said: "You cannot inconvenience people," continuing that there cannot be indefinite protests in common spaces. Justice Kaul asked: "If everybody starts protesting everywhere, what will happen?" The court accordingly issued a notice to the Central government, directing it to file a response by February 17, when the matter is posted for hearing next.

Sahni had first filed his plea before the Delhi High Court where it was disposed of after the court asked authorities to look into the matter in "accordance with law", without issuing any formal order with respect to the case. The High Court had dispensed with the petition after asking Delhi Police to consider Sahni's grievances.

The lawyer then approached the top court with a Special Leave Petition, challenging the Delhi High Court order. Sahni's petition questions whether the rights of the Shaheen Bagh protesters under Article 19 should be without any restrictions given that the agitation was "in violation of other persons' right to have a thoroughfare"

Arguing for reasonable restrictions on the protest, the petition cites the duration of the protest and says "it creates disturbance to public at large thereby resulting in wastage of fuel, time and energy of lakhs of commuters travelling daily".