The centre was justifying the imposition of prohibitory orders under section 144 of CrPC in Central Delhi which houses most of the government buildings and VIP residences, after a plea opposed continuous imposition of prohibitory orders, saying it obstructed the fundamental right to protest.
A bench of Justices A K Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, which is hearing a plea filed by an NGO challenging the ban of all assemblies and protests in Central and the New Delhi area, was told by the centre that there were some instances in the past, when during the protests, law and order situation has arisen.
"We are in an era where there are some professional protestors who like to protest outside the apex court, parliament, President's house or Prime Minister's house. They don't like any other alternative place for protests. Many a times, during the protests there is a serious law and order situation. As a government, we need to take holistic steps," Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the centre, said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan, said there cannot be continuous imposition of prohibitory orders under section 144 of CrPC in entire Central Delhi, which is an emergency provision to be used at the time of apprehension of violence or law and order problems.
He objected to the ASG's comment "professional protestors" and said the government cannot ask people to go to Ramlila Maidan or Narela in west Delhi to protest, which is their fundamental right.
"The government in its affidavit justifies continuous imposition of prohibitory orders in entire Central Delhi, which is a huge area. There are various Supreme Court verdicts which recognises people's right to protest as a fundamental right. The protests are always near the place where government is seated," Mr Bhushan said.
Mr Mehta intervened and said he did not mean that all protestors are "professional protestors" but some of them are certainly are.
He said it is understandable of the government imposing prohibitory orders if there is a specific intelligence input or apprehension of protests by a group turning violent and creating serious breach of peace and harmony.
Mr Mehta, sarcastically, commented that it was high time that the top court should "elevate the fundamental right to protest to right to livelihood."
The centre in its affidavit has justified imposition of prohibitory orders citing over a dozen incidents of the past during which protests have turned violent and the police had to use tear gas and water cannon to control the mob.
The bench posted the matter for further hearing for April 27.
The top court had earlier said it needed to take a holistic view of protecting the fundamental rights of citizens to protest, as well as protection of environment and rights of commuters, while earmarking space for agitations in Delhi. It had asked the centre to file a comprehensive response in the matter.
On December 4 last year, the top court had said proper guidelines should be framed on the issue of right to protest so as to ensure a balance between the fundamental right of the citizens to protest and maintenance of law and order.
The plea of the NGO had said continuous imposition of prohibitory orders was an "arbitrary and unreasonable restriction" on the fundamental rights of citizens to hold peaceful protest. The petition, has sought directions to formulate guidelines for holding public meetings, dharnas, peaceful demonstrations in parts of New Delhi.
"As per sub-section 4 of Section 144 CrPC, an order can be issued for a maximum period of two months. Therefore, the Delhi Police has adopted the tactic of issuing the same order repeatedly," the plea said.
Get Breaking news, live coverage, and Latest News from India and around the world on NDTV.com. Catch all the Live TV action on NDTV 24x7 and NDTV India. Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter and Instagram for latest news and live news updates.