The Chamber of Trade and Industry (CTI), an apex body representing traders and entrepreneurs in Delhi, on Wednesday, 4 November 2026 welcomed the Supreme Court's observation that 'occupation in the name of protest cannot be perpetual' and put forward five demands before the Delhi Police and the government to protect traders and businesses from losses caused by protests and demonstrations.

CTI Endorses Supreme Court's Stance

CTI Chairman Brijesh Goyal said the remarks by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had given voice to the concerns of nearly two million traders, five million employees, and daily-wage workers across the capital. He said the court had rightly observed that a protest by one group should not deprive others of their fundamental rights — including the right to earn a livelihood.

Goyal noted that CTI had consistently maintained over the past month that while every citizen had the right to protest, others equally had the right to conduct business without disruption. He referred to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission before the apex court that Jantar Mantar remained occupied for 17 days despite permission being granted for only one day, calling the development a validation of concerns the traders' body had repeatedly raised.

Goyal claimed the indefinite occupation of Jantar Mantar had caused business losses amounting to ₹3,000 crore in Delhi and questioned who would compensate traders for overall losses he claimed had reached ₹14,000 crore.

Key Demands Placed Before Authorities

CTI's first demand called for Central Delhi to be declared a no-protest zone until Bhaiya Dooj on 11 November, with a proposal to permanently designate the 10 days of the Diwali festival as a no-protest period every year. Goyal said no rallies, sit-ins or demonstrations should be permitted at Connaught Place, Jantar Mantar, Ramlila Maidan, India Gate, and Delhi Gate during this window, and suggested alternative sites — Burari, Alipur, Jasola, and Yamuna Khadar — be designated for such events.

Second, the body demanded strict enforcement of a 'one day, one protest' rule at Jantar Mantar, with organisations allowed to demonstrate at the venue for only one day at a time and mandatory vacation of the premises by 5 pm.

Legal and Financial Safeguards Sought

Third, CTI demanded the enactment of a Delhi Recovery of Damages Act to ensure compensation for business losses and damage to private property caused during protests. Goyal pointed to similar legislation already on the books in Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Tripura, and Uttarakhand, which provide for the recovery of damages from those responsible for planning or instigating violence and destruction during demonstrations.

Fourth, CTI proposed a dedicated trade-disruption insurance mechanism and a compensation fund for traders and daily-wage earners affected by rallies, demonstrations, and traffic restrictions. The fund, Goyal said, should cover losses suffered by nearly five million daily-wage workers, street vendors, auto-rickshaw drivers, loaders, and porters — groups whose livelihoods are directly hit by shop closures and transport disruptions. He suggested a structure similar to claims tribunals set up to address losses during riots.

NOC From Trade Bodies Before Large Rallies

Fifth, CTI demanded that Delhi Police obtain a no-objection certificate (NOC) from CTI and the concerned market association before granting permission for any large rally involving more than 10,000 people in Central Delhi. The body also called for traffic management and parking plans for such events to be made public in advance, to minimise inconvenience to traders, employees, and commuters.

Broader Context

The five-point charter comes at a moment when the Supreme Court's scrutiny of indefinite protests — particularly at designated sites like Jantar Mantar — has intensified. This is not the first time Delhi's trading community has flagged economic damage from prolonged demonstrations; similar concerns were raised during the extended farmers' protest in 2020–21. CTI's demands, however, represent a more structured push for legislative and administrative remedies, moving beyond ad hoc appeals to authorities. The Supreme Court's observations, if translated into enforceable guidelines, could reshape how protest permissions are granted and monitored in the capital.