The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday refused to restrain the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) from holding a protest march from India Gate to the Delhi Police Headquarters in the national capital on September 5, noting that the matter primarily concerned law-and-order and policy issues.
An SC bench headed by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, however, expressed hope that the proposed agitation would remain peaceful and said there were no compelling circumstances at present which warrant judicial intervention.
CJI Surya Kant
SC leaves decision to authorities
The top court had been hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by an ex-police officer attached to Delhi Police, Rajendra Singh, and was represented by advocate Rizwan Ahmed. The petition sought compensation for those police personnel who were injured during the CJP’s July 20 protest at Jantar Mantar and the recovery of losses caused to government property from the ones responsible.
Moreover, the petitioner sought a framework regulating demonstrations near Parliament and other vital government facilities, including the constitution of reasonable no-demonstration or protective zones. The petitioner’s counsel submitted during the hearing that several aspects of the issue had not been addressed yet.
A visual from the July 20 Jantar Mantar protest led by CJP
However, the CJI said the SC could not examine every aspect of the matter and directed the petitioner towards the High-Powered Committee formed by the court to examine issues pertaining to protests.
The CJI asserted, “All aspects cannot be looked into by us. We won't comment on everything. Please go to the High-Powered Committee we have formed.”
He called the committee a ‘neutral umpire,’ adding that it would consider the issues individually and submit its response to the court. He further said the stakeholders should deliberate on the broader policy and law-and-order questions.
Security concerns raised ahead of Sept 5 march
During the hearing, the court was apprised of the fact that the CJP had announced a fresh protest march in the national capital on September 5. Advocate Ahmed also drew the apex court’s attention to the BRICS summit slated to be held on September 12 and 13, 2026. He contended that the proposed march should be postponed until after the summit, voicing concerns over security and presence of foreign dignitaries.
However, the CJI said decisions concerning law and order should be taken by the agencies concerned. He ruled, “See, these are law-and-order issues. The decision has to be taken by law-and-order agencies. We also trust and hope everybody behaves in a peaceful manner. As of now there are no compelling circumstances for us to interfere.”
Thereafter, the CJI noted that the matter involved broader policy considerations that should be deliberated upon by the relevant stakeholders. The court remarked that if any untoward or alarming incident unfolded, the petitioner could approach it with a fresh application.