Back
Seeks Supreme Court Intervention Against CJP Protests Affecting Advocates in Delhi
The is set to examine a critical filed by , a lawyers' body, seeking to restrain protests by the that have allegedly paralysed the national capital and severely disrupted the professional functioning of advocates. The application, moved in the context of ongoing , highlights the delicate balance between the and the rights of others to access justice and earn a livelihood.
The bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, which had earlier convened a special Sunday sitting to address the situation, also directed the removal of a board imposing prohibitory orders under , near the Supreme Court premises. This development underscores the judiciary's vigilance against any measure that could impede .
Background: The and the Intervention
The present matter arises from a
concerning protests called by the Cockroach Janta Party on
. The plea alleged that metro services in Delhi remained substantially shut despite the Supreme Court's earlier order that such services could be regulated but not stopped. In response,
, represented through its Secretary
, filed an
urging the Apex Court to issue directions ensuring that the right to protest is exercised within the bounds of law and does not
"paralyse the national capital or infringe the fundamental rights of others."
The intervenor submitted that the livelihood of its members—practising advocates, litigants, and court staff—depends on the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of courts and free movement across Delhi. It argued that prolonged protests restricting public spaces, roads, and metro connectivity directly affect the professional rights of advocates.
"Dissent is an integral part of democracy, but the manner of protest must remain within the bounds of law,"
the application states, quoting the filing.
Allegations Against the Cockroach Janta Party
alleged that the Cockroach Janta Party has been organising successive protests primarily to capture media attention and remain politically relevant, pushing the system towards a state of disorder. Referring to a recent call for protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, the application contended that grievances concerning the verification of election records must be pursued through established statutory and constitutional remedies. The issue, it noted, is , and any aggrieved party is free to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
The application further detailed that on
, police communicated that the proposed protest was not permitted and informed the organisers that
, was in force. Despite this, according to the lawyers' body, the organisers did not call off the protest, leading to large-scale detentions—approximately 7,000 persons were detained—and disruption of public life.
"Large-scale deployment of police and paramilitary forces, erection of barricades, disruption of metro services, and the virtual shutdown of the city are back in the National Capital again. All these measures directly impede the free movement of lawyers and litigants and thereby cause serious prejudice to the livelihood and professional functioning of the members of the Applicant-Intervenor,"
the plea states.
The Section 163 BNSS Controversy
During the hearing of the matter, a separate but related issue emerged: the imposition of a
under Section 163 BNSS in the area surrounding the Supreme Court.
, appearing for one of the parties, questioned the authorities:
"Did you take permission from the Chief Justice of India [for uploading the board on imposition of S.163]?"
Initially, the President of the
,
, submitted that the lawyers' body was not informed about the imposition of the order. Justice Bagchi observed in a lighter vein that if the
was not properly published, it would be a good ground to quash it.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan further submitted that the imposition of Section 163 BNSS outside the Supreme Court and the hoisting of a board to that effect was "shocking." He contended that permission ought to have been obtained from the competent authority at the Supreme Court before such a prohibition was imposed. The bench ultimately directed the authorities to take down the board concerning the imposition of Section 163 BNSS in the area around the Supreme Court, if not already done, to ensure there is no apprehension regarding , including to any court of law.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Fundamental Rights and
The case raises fundamental questions under , which guarantees the () and the throughout the territory of India (). These rights are subject to in the interest of , as provided under and (3). The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to protest is not absolute and cannot be exercised in a manner that disrupts the normal functioning of society or infringes on the rights of others.
In this context, the by serves as a reminder that while dissent is a cornerstone of democracy, it must be balanced against the equally fundamental rights of others—including the right to access courts and earn a livelihood. The Court's earlier direction that metro and rail services shall function normally unless restrictions are required to be imposed keeping in mind disturbances to , as contemplated under , sets a clear precedent.
The issue of the Section 163 BNSS board near the Supreme Court further highlights the judiciary's insistence on procedural propriety. By ordering the removal of the board, the bench reinforced that even lawful restrictions must not create an apprehension of denial of . This aligns with the principle that the functioning of courts is a sacrosanct constitutional duty that cannot be hampered by executive action without due authorisation.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For practising advocates, the disruption caused by repeated protests has tangible consequences. Court appearances, filing deadlines, and client consultations are all dependent on reliable transportation and access to court premises. The underscores that the professional rights of lawyers are not merely economic interests but are integral to the administration of justice. If courts are inaccessible, the entire justice delivery system suffers.
Moreover, the Supreme Court's proactive stance—holding a special Sunday sitting and issuing directions on both the protest issue and the BNSS board—sends a strong message that it will not tolerate any action that undermines the or . Legal professionals will be watching closely as the unfold, as the outcome may establish clearer guidelines on the permissible extent of protests in sensitive areas like court precincts and public transport hubs.
Conclusion
The by before the Supreme Court highlights the ongoing tension between the right to protest and the right to access justice. As the Court weighs the arguments, it must navigate the complex interplay of fundamental rights, , and the practical realities of legal practice. The simultaneous direction to remove the Section 163 BNSS board near the Supreme Court underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that no measure, even if legally permissible, creates a on access to courts. For the legal community, this case serves as a crucial touchstone in defining the boundaries of in India's democratic framework.
