SC asks authorities to identify alternative sites with basic amenities for peaceful protests
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the government to consider identifying and designating suitable alternative sites equipped with basic amenities and infrastructure for holding peaceful and lawful protests in the national capital, after it was submitted that it was “high time” such facilities were provided to demonstrators.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said suitable alternative locations capable of accommodating the necessary infrastructure could be identified and designated to facilitate peaceful protests.
“During the course of hearing, it was suggested, and learned senior counsel and counsel for the parties were ad idem, that it is high time basic amenities were provided to those engaged in peaceful and lawful protest,” the Supreme Court said in its order.
“To that end, suitable alternative sites capable of housing such infrastructure need to be identified and designated. Let the Competent Authority consider this suggestion and take an appropriate decision thereon,” it added.
The observation came while the apex court was considering concerns over restrictions imposed on Metro and railway services in the national capital ahead of a proposed protest at Jantar Mantar.
The CJI-led Bench recorded that communications issued by the Delhi Police to the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and the zonal railways had directed the cessation or cancellation of certain train services in view of the potential risk of unruly mob movements towards sensitive locations.
The restrictions included a reduction in the frequency of Metro trains passing through 57 stations and the closure of their entry and exit gates from 9 p.m. on October 9, continuing on October 10 until the situation normalised.
Taking note of the restrictions, the Supreme Court observed that the notifications appeared to be “overreaching” as they imposed a complete ban on essential public transportation.
It said there was a distinction between an outright prohibition and the regulation of Metro and other railway services.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed to impress upon the authorities to reassess the prohibitions and permit the operation of Metro trains and other railway services in a suitably regulated manner, ensuring that residents and the general public did not face inconvenience.
The apex court clarified that there should be no outright prohibition on the movement of Metro trains, while allowing the authorities to take a prudent decision on regulating their operations and those of other railway services in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
It directed that the decision on the regulated operation of Metro and other railway services be given wide publicity to prevent further inconvenience to commuters.
The Supreme Court also directed that a traffic advisory be published in newspapers and on online platforms to facilitate the smooth movement of vehicles and ensure that people travelling within the city did not face unnecessary hardship.
The apex court further directed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), the railway authorities concerned, and Delhi Police (Traffic) to file a compliance report within four days.