'Festive Season Business Being Jeopardized Due To Protests': Traders Tell Delhi HC; Protest Pleas Adjourned To Friday
The traders allege that ongoing protests have jeopardized business worth around ₹2,000 crore; High Court seeks pleadings filed before the Supreme Court to examine whether the issues overlap with pending proceedings
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday adjourned petitions concerning the ongoing protests in Delhi to Friday, after asking the parties to place on record the pleadings in related proceedings before the Supreme Court to determine whether the issues raised before it overlap with those pending before the apex court.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma was hearing a plea by traders seeking the implementation of guidelines and a standard operating procedure (SOP) to regulate protests, as well as a separate petition seeking an investigation into alleged violence against protesters on October 10.
During the hearing of the traders’ plea, Senior Advocate Sachin Puri submitted that business in Delhi was being severely affected by the ongoing protests, particularly during the festive season.
" ₹2,000 crores business has vanished. These are festival seasons. We get the business only during this period, which annuals for our benefit for the entire period. October till February is the best time for business in Delhi and that is being jeopardized " Puri submitted.
He argued that the issue of designated protest areas and the implementation of the mechanism governing demonstrations had repeatedly come before the courts.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, Puri submitted that the apex court had directed the authorities to devise a mechanism for the limited use of Jantar Mantar for peaceful protests and demonstrations.
He also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations on repeated prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in areas around Parliament. The judgment had cautioned against such orders creating a situation of perpetuity that effectively amounted to a ban on public meetings and demonstrations.
The High Court asked what steps the Central Government had taken to implement the directions in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
The Bench observed that if the grievance concerned non-implementation of the judgment, the parties should establish what action had been taken by the authorities and whether further steps were required.
Puri submitted that the issues raised in the traders’ plea were not before the Supreme Court. The Bench, however, said it did not want to address an issue that was already sub judice before the apex court.
The Court directed the parties to place copies of the pleadings in the Supreme Court proceedings on record and adjourned the matter to Friday.
The order records that the petitioners sought the adjournment to enable them to produce the relevant pleadings, so the Court could examine “whether the claim put forth in the present petition covers or also overlaps with the issue which is sought to be canvassed before the Apex Court”.
The Court also directed the respondents to take instructions in the matter.
NSUI, Anshika Tripathi Seek SIT Probe Into Alleged Violence
Separately, the High Court heard a petition filed by the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) and Anshika Tripathi seeking an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into alleged violence against protesters on October 10.
Advocate Meghan Ahmad, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that unidentified persons who were not part of the protest had allegedly entered the protest site and assaulted demonstrators with sticks.
Ahmad told the Court that 18 video recordings had been filed and that several other videos showing the alleged incidents were circulating on social media.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition under the Delhi High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, Sharma submitted that the Delhi High Court’s PIL Rules prescribe specific requirements for petitions filed in the public interest, including disclosures about the petitioner’s identity, background and organisational affiliations, where applicable.
He argued that the petitioner had not complied with the requirements under Rules 9(E), 9(F) and 9(G).
Ahmad submitted that the prayer was limited to seeking action against those allegedly responsible for the violence and urged the Court to consider the sensitive nature of the allegations.
The ASG questioned how the petitioner could argue the merits of the case before the preliminary objection to maintainability had been addressed.
The Bench permitted the ASG to place his preliminary objection on record by way of an affidavit.
During the hearing, counsel also sought preservation of CCTV footage from the protest site so that potentially relevant evidence would not be lost. Another counsel sought clarification from the authorities about alleged house arrests, including the number of persons detained, the legal provisions invoked and the orders under which such action was taken.
The proceedings were adjourned as the Court sought to examine the overlap, if any, with the matters pending before the Supreme Court.
The petitions will be taken up on Friday.
Next Story