Lawyers’ Voice alleges that successive CJP protests disrupted public transport and restricted access to courts. The association urges the Supreme Court to protect advocates’ professional activities while ensuring lawful demonstrations.
Lawyers’ Voice Seeks Intervention in Supreme Court Contempt Proceedings
Lawyers’ Voice has approached the Supreme Court in the Delhi Lawyers Protest Intervention matter. The organisation seeks permission to intervene in contempt proceedings concerning protests called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).
The association alleges that repeated demonstrations have disrupted normal activities across the national capital. It claims these disruptions have affected advocates’ livelihoods and professional responsibilities.
Through its application, Lawyers’ Voice seeks directions to ensure that protests comply with the law. It argues that demonstrations must not paralyse Delhi or violate the fundamental rights of others.
The organisation’s Secretary, Neeraj, filed the application on its behalf.
According to the plea, its members depend on uninterrupted court functioning. They also require unrestricted movement for lawyers, litigants and court staff throughout Delhi.
The intervention follows a contempt application concerning metro services on October 10.
That application alleges that metro services remained substantially suspended despite an earlier Supreme Court order. The order permitted authorities to regulate metro and rail services but not stop them.
Association Highlights Legal Limits on Right to Protest
Lawyers’ Voice acknowledges that the Constitution protects the right to protest.
The association states that protests allow individuals and groups to express grievances against government actions or inaction.
However, it argues that protesters must exercise this right within legal limits.
According to the application, demonstrations cannot bring the national capital to a standstill. They must also respect the fundamental rights of other citizens.
The association claims that prolonged protests obstruct roads, public spaces and metro connectivity.
Such disruptions allegedly interfere with advocates’ ability to attend court and fulfil professional responsibilities.
The application states:
“Dissent is an integral part of democracy, but the manner of protest must remain within the bounds of law.”
Lawyers’ Voice further alleges that CJP has organised successive demonstrations to attract media attention and maintain political relevance.
It also accuses the party of attempting to push the system towards disorder.
These allegations form part of the association’s submissions before the Supreme Court.
CJP Protest Demands Resignation of Chief Election Commissioner
The application refers to CJP’s recent protest call demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
Lawyers’ Voice argues that disputes over the verification of election records require legal remedies.
It maintains that aggrieved individuals and political parties can approach the appropriate statutory or constitutional forum.
The association also notes that the matter remains sub judice.
According to the plea, police informed the protest organisers on October 9 that they could not proceed with the proposed demonstration.
Police also informed them about prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The intervenor argues that the organisers should have cancelled the demonstration and dispersed.
It further states that the administration and police authorities bear primary responsibility for maintaining law and order.
Plea Cites Detention of Approximately 7,000 People
Lawyers’ Voice has also raised concerns about police action and restrictions on public movement.
Citing media reports, the application claims that authorities detained approximately 7,000 people to prevent an unauthorised protest.
According to the plea, authorities released those individuals by late evening.
The association further alleges that the demonstration continued despite these preventive measures.
It highlights the deployment of police and paramilitary personnel across Delhi.
The application also refers to barricades, interrupted metro services and restrictions on public movement.
According to Lawyers’ Voice, these measures created serious difficulties for advocates and litigants.
The organisation claims that the disruptions prevented lawyers from travelling freely and carrying out professional duties.
It argues that such restrictions directly affect advocates’ livelihoods.
The application specifically refers to the alleged virtual shutdown of the national capital.
Lawyers’ Voice maintains that large-scale security arrangements and transport disruptions caused serious prejudice to its members.
Lawyers’ Voice Seeks Protection for Advocates’ Professional Activities
The association states that its intervention aims to highlight the difficulties faced by practising advocates.
It argues that lawyers require reliable public transport and access to courts to discharge their professional obligations.
The plea also emphasises the movement of litigants and court staff.
According to the organisation, repeated disruptions interfere with the administration of justice.
Lawyers’ Voice therefore seeks appropriate directions to prevent demonstrations from obstructing essential professional activities.
The association maintains that the right to protest must coexist with the rights of other citizens.
Advocate-on-Record Shoumendu Mukherji filed the intervention application.
Supreme Court Issues Directions During Special Sunday Sitting
Earlier, on October 11, the Supreme Court held a special Sunday sitting concerning the protests.
During the hearing, the Court issued directions regarding detentions and public transport services.
The Supreme Court directed authorities to follow the procedure established by law when detaining individuals.
It specifically addressed peaceful and unarmed assemblies outside areas covered by prohibitory orders.
The Court referred to restrictions under Section 163 of the BNSS.
It also directed authorities to maintain normal metro and rail operations.
However, the Court allowed necessary restrictions in response to disturbances affecting public order.
The order referred to Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
The Court thus addressed both lawful protest activity and the need to maintain public services.
Delhi Lawyers Protest Intervention Highlights Livelihood Concerns
Through its intervention application, Lawyers’ Voice seeks to bring advocates’ professional concerns before the Supreme Court.
The association alleges that repeated demonstrations have disrupted transport services and restricted access to courts.
It argues that such disruptions affect lawyers, litigants and court staff.
The application also emphasises the need to balance lawful protests with the fundamental rights of others.
The Supreme Court will consider the intervention request in the context of the proceedings arising from the Delhi protests.
