The Supreme Court on Thursday sought responses from the Centre, Delhi Police and others on a plea seeking to hold organisers of protests personally or jointly liable for loss of life, injuries, damage to public or private property and the costs incurred by the authorities. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the petition, which also sought a direction that protests, dharnas, demonstrations, processions and public assemblies in the national capital should not be held without prior written permission from the competent authority.
The plea sought to make organisers, callers, leaders or convenors of protests liable for losses arising from unlawful acts or omissions, including when an assembly is held without permission or violates the conditions imposed for its approval. The bench issued notices to the Centre, Delhi Police and other parties, seeking their responses to the petition, according to news agency PTI.
The petition also sought directions to the authorities to identify and notify designated locations for protests, dharnas, demonstrations and public assemblies in Delhi. These sites, it said, should be situated away from densely populated, commercial and central areas. It further proposed that every application seeking permission for a protest, demonstration, procession or public assembly should be accompanied by an affidavit from the organiser disclosing the source of funding. The declaration should also specify whether any part of the funds had been received, or was expected to be received, from a foreign source or an unidentified source, the plea said.
According to the petition, a false or incomplete declaration should provide grounds for revoking permission, recovering compensation and costs from the organiser and those found to have financed the assembly, and initiating prosecution in accordance with the law.
The hearing came as the Supreme Court considered several petitions connected to protests in Delhi, including pleas concerning alleged assaults on journalists and lawyers, police action and restrictions on demonstrations. In a separate matter, the bench issued notices to the Centre and the Delhi government on a plea challenging the Delhi Police’s decision to de-notify Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site. The petitioner, advocate Swaty Malik, argued that removing the designation violated the fundamental right to protest. The plea maintained that demonstrations should be permitted at a location where protesters could make their grievances heard by the state administration.
Justice Bagchi observed that the concept of being heard should also be considered in the context of technology. “The word ‘heard’ must be used in the perspective of technology also”, Justice Bagchi remarked. The court agreed to examine the petition and sought responses from the authorities. In other pleas linked to the protests, the Supreme Court sought responses from the authorities over allegations involving journalists and lawyers. It also directed law-enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital records relating to the demonstrations. The bench further directed that the order issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) be placed on record. The provision empowers authorised executive magistrates to issue urgent prohibitory orders to prevent public danger, disturbances or riots. The court indicated that the Union government would file a consolidated response to the batch of petitions while relevant material relating to individual cases was preserved.
Separately, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Election Commission and chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and 12 other opposition leaders over alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The bench also took note of submissions concerning the October 12 march to the Supreme Court by Rahul and other opposition leaders. “Nobody can browbeat us (judiciary),” CJI Surya Kant said during the hearing, adding that the court was aware of statements made both inside and outside the courtroom.
The court said it would ask one of the petitioners about his conduct at the next hearing, without naming the individual. The petition by Rahul and the other opposition leaders sought an independent audit of deletions and modifications made during the SIR, to be conducted by a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge and assisted by technical experts and other prominent citizens. It also sought safeguards against deleting voters’ names without notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard, along with measures to allow eligible voters in Punjab and other poll-bound states to seek inclusion in electoral rolls within the time permitted by law.
