A plea was filed by the Kirana Committee of Delhi and the Delhi Iron and Hardware Merchants Association, concerned by the call for a protest by Abhijit Dipke and his supporters in Central Delhi and Connaught Place, stating that it would cause obstruction to all traders, resulting in a loss of over 200 to 250 crores a day.

Yesterday, the Delhi Police assured the Delhi High Court that law enforcement authorities have already initiated requisite measures to regulate and restrain the activities.

The counsel for the Petitioner mentioned the matter and submitted grave concern over a public call for a protest given by Abhijit Dipke and his supporters to gather at Central Park, resulting in the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) issuing a notification to shut down the park.

However, the bench declined to interfere immediately, noting that the Delhi High Court had already dealt with the matter, and scheduled the hearing for October 26, assuring that the court would examine whether the NDMC's restrictions were disproportionate and exercise its powers under constitutional tort jurisdiction and public law compensation if necessary.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked, "We hope that better sense will prevail on everyone, and people will get a season of festivity; we know that all small shopkeepers, rehri-wala, stall people, they are on their livelihood during these days. And we know the hardship and difficulty, and the crisis the entire families will face."


A public call given on social media to gather at Central Park, Connaught Place, directly above Palika Bazar, at 5 PM on October 16 2026, by Abhijeet Dipke.

The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted, "I appear for the petitioners, the Kirana Committee of Delhi and the Delhi Iron and Hardware Merchants Association. They are greatly concerned, my lord, by the call for the protest today in Central Delhi, in Connaught Place. It will cause obstruction to all the traders, over 200 to 250 crores a day and the NDMC has put out a notice last night. It's grave urgency. NDMC is shutting the Central Park."

Justice Bagchi said, "The Delhi High Court has dealt with this matter. So we are not going to interfere...It is not different. They are all related. Someone wants to protest, someone wants to sell moongphali, someone wants to maintain law and order—all are related."

The Counsel argued that the festive season is coming now, and therefore there's grave urgency in the matter.

Justice Bagchi added, "If it is not considered on the 26th, and it carries loss of business, and we hold that it is unlawfully done to your clients, we will exercise our powers under constitutional tort jurisdiction. So let's cross that bridge when it comes."

The Counsel added, "I just want to point something out, my lord. The NDMC yesterday, my lord... last night, NDMC has come out late at night yesterday with a notification shutting down the Central Park in Connaught Place. That will mean effectively no trade will happen there."

The Bench added, "We will take it up on the 26th. If we feel NDMC's order is a disproportionate restriction, as we told you, there is ample jurisdiction evolved by this court under compensation in public law; we will act."

Recently, the Supreme Court heard several pleas addressing alleged non-compliance with its orders concerning the restriction of metro services, internet suspensions, and widespread detentions during recent protests, and subsequently issued notices in all related matters.

The Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the woman journalist whose complaint regarding alleged molestation and harassment, along with related proceedings involving an ACP, was under consideration, noting that she would cooperate with ongoing processes while remaining protected from adverse coercive measures.

The protests were held on October 10 after it was reported by The Indian Express that Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi registered written dissents on record on at least 14 separate occasions over a 10-month period. The objections pertained to administrative decisions and official orders issued without the knowledge, consent, or participation of the full Commission, four of which occurred on a single day.

A plea is also pending before the Supreme Court seeking directions against all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The plea alleged that the decisions were taken without full Commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the other Election Commissioners.

Tags: