As trader organisations sought a halt to the ongoing protests in New Delhi during the festive season, the Supreme Court said Tuesday that protesters “cannot occupy a site for all times to come” and a “designated site must be given only for an identified period”.Weeks after the Cockroach Janta Party’s march from Jantar Mantar towards Parliament on July 20, the Delhi Police denotified Jantar Mantar as a designated protest site on October 12 and identified three alternative venues – Ramlila Maidan, Burari Ground and CBD Ground – for protest gatherings in the Capital.On October 16, protesters gathered in and around Connaught Place, responding to the CJP call for a ‘Lehra Do Tiranga’ march to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. On November 1, the INDIA bloc’s protest against the CEC was held at Ramlila Maidan.On Tuesday, a three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, also said it will examine whether the alleged surveillance by Delhi Police during the protests at Jantar Mantar amounted to negative state interference. The bench pointed out that the current law permits use of iris scans.Appearing for the traders, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi said the protests had severely affected the traders during the festive season.Referring to wholesale markets around Ramlila Maidan, he said, “The government must now think and come out with a scheme whether it applies to Delhi or state capitals. It’s no longer Jantar Mantar, here, there. I represent all the trading associations in Delhi. Apart from the fact that we have lost thousands of crores, all shops remain closed, there is nobody in Connaught place today. This is the festive season.”Also Read | Jantar Mantar is out. Are Delhi’s 3 new protest sites fit for demonstrations?Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said, “Whoever gives the bandh call must take the responsibility. There are judgments to that effect.”Story continues below this adRohatgi said, “Dussehra is gone, Diwali is on our head. Only two months left… This is the festive season. We have been bleeding, our people are bleeding. So let there be no protest or dharna for the next two months, with or without permission.”This was opposed by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy who was representing petitioners against mass detentions and police action against protesters. She said police had detained 7,000 people and asked “are we not bleeding them as a constitutional democracy?”Mehta said, “It is not detention, it is removal.”Senior Advocate N Hariharan, also appearing for some petitioners, said, “It (Ramlila Maidan) is a designated protest ground. You have designated it. Now if they have a problem with that too, where do we protest?”To a query from the bench, Rohatgi said he had not made the organisers of the protests party to his petition and said he would do so.Story continues below this adThe CJI said, “You implead all those organisations, whatever entities, social entities, NGOs, political entities etc who have conducted this. Because without seeking their response, it is not possible for any court to (adjudicate).”Guruswamy said the barricades were placed by the state and it was the state which forced the shopkeepers to close.The CJI said there were “two competing claims”. He said, “Right to protest is also recognised under the Constitution, right to trade and business also. We are not talking about trade in terms of the commercial establishments, but in terms of source of livelihood, the rediwala or hawker, where will they go? The only way out is to identify a place for these protests, (which) does not affect the day-to-day business of people.”Mehta said, “One cannot call for protest without permission. The result is loss of livelihood to others. Then you start shouting in court that nothing can be done against us. A protest site is one thing, but calling for a protest without permission and asking lakhs of people to march towards Parliament…”Story continues below this adThe CJI said, “You can’t occupy a site for all times to come. There are other protesters. Where the farmers will go, where workers will go, where the trade unions will go, journalists will go. Everybody has the right to protest. So a designated site must be given only for an identified period. Everybody must adhere to those conditions.”He told the Solicitor General that the order granting permission must say that the extension is not being given because there is another request for another protest. “Everybody has a right to protest. You can’t say now that I have occupied the site, therefore I will not shift,” he said.Mehta said, “The permission was only for one day to hold the July 20 protest. There was an undertaking signed by the person who sought permission. They occupied the site for 17 days. Then without taking permission, they marched to the Parliament. Parliament is not a political building, it’s a symbol of sovereignty of India. You cannot be permitted to go to Parliament, you cannot be permitted to go to the Supreme Court of India without permission.”On the issue of alleged police surveillance, Advocate Prashant Bhushan said he was representing petitioners who wanted the state to “inform… what kind of surveillance is taking place and, secondly, under which legislative framework, this surveillance is taking place”.Story continues below this adMehta said, “The right to privacy in a public place when you are protesting publicly. That’s the petition in one line. What kind of PILs are being filed?”In all designated sites, he said, there is CCTV surveillance so that nothing inadvertent happens. “The petition says this affects my right to privacy. I am in a public place, I am publicly protesting but my right is affected because there is a CCTV camera.”Also Read | INDIA bloc’s Ramlila Maidan rally: Do we need to ‘pay to protest’?“By this logic, CCTV cameras installed for the security of women will also be removed,” he said.Justice Bagchi said that is a “very simplistic argument.” Pointing out that the state has a right to put up a CCTV camera, he sought to draw a contrast between a human agency interpreting the data and machines doing it.Story continues below this adHe said that where the human agency to identify the faces is “replaced by an enormously powerful recollective machine whose faculty recognises, let’s say 1 million of our citizens, it may have to be examined whether it infarcts privacy. Number 2 which has to be seen is the utilisation of the data against which the picture or the electronic feed you are matching.”Justice Bagchi said, “We never saw anyone referring to the amendment to the Identification of Prisoners Act. Because that is the legislative change which took place. We need you to address us on that. The Act enables a state in the matter of detection of crime to utilise iris identification.”Mehta said, “The exception to the law on privacy is legitimate state interest. That’s what Your Lordships have said and we will have to satisfy.”Justice Bagchi said, “What you said on the last date is that they are allegedly hardened criminals. So you have the feed of a particular day. You have the NCRB data on the basis of a database created under the Act… Whether that amounts to negative state interference” the court will examine.