NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Sunday stepped into the row over restrictions imposed during the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) protest in Delhi, directing authorities to prevent illegal detentions, ensure normal Metro and railway operations and protect the ability of lawyers and journalists to perform their duties. The court also ordered the removal of a notice board announcing prohibitory restrictions near its premises, saying citizens and lawyers must have access to justice.A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the Centre on a contempt plea alleging that authorities had violated the court’s October 9 directions on public transport restrictions. The hearing came a day after more than 7,000 people were detained during a security crackdown on the planned mobilisation at Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.During the special sitting, lawyers alleged that detentions and movement restrictions had extended beyond the areas covered by prohibitory orders. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, told the court that restrictions on October 10 covered 45 of Delhi Metro’s 303 stations and that most detainees had already been released.Here are the key actions and directions from the Supreme Court hearing.
Authorities told to prevent illegal detentions
The court made clear that people assembling peacefully cannot be detained outside the bounds of the law, particularly in areas not covered by prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).“There shall not be illegal detention, save and except by procedure established by law, particularly with regard to assemblage of people beyond the area within which it’s imposed,” the bench said.The issue was raised by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for RJD MP Manoj Jha. Sibal alleged that police were detaining people travelling by train and individuals outside the four-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar, where prohibitory orders were in force.
Normal Metro and railway operations to be ensured
The Supreme Court directed that Delhi Metro services should operate according to their normal schedule and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, to ensure that the authorities concerned complied with the direction. It also called for railway services to function without a blanket prohibition, subject to lawful and necessary restrictions.The direction followed the court’s October 9 order, passed after a separate petition challenged the closure of 57 Metro stations and cancellation of trains in view of the planned protest.On Sunday, Mehta said entry and exit had been restricted at 45 of the network’s 303 stations on October 10, accounting for around 15 per cent of the total. Lawyers appearing before the court had alleged that the restrictions continued despite the earlier order, with some stations completely inaccessible to passengers.
Internet access must not be disrupted unlawfully
The bench directed the authorities to ensure that internet services remained undisturbed, subject to law and order requirements. It also clarified that the direction did not curtail powers available under the Information Technology Act.“Internet facilities shall remain undisturbed, as per law….When we are saying internet facilities shall remain undisturbed, we are not taking away the powers under the Information Technology Act,” the bench said.The court’s observation sought to ensure that restrictions imposed amid the security operation did not extend to internet connectivity without lawful justification.
Free movement
The court called for free movement of people, subject to traffic regulations, and for authorities to review the need for barricades that could impede movement across Delhi.Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan urged the bench to direct the removal of barricades and restoration of services at Metro stations. Lawyers had argued that restrictions were affecting not only protesters but also other residents and commuters.The court’s broader directions sought to ensure that security measures did not impose unnecessary hardship on people moving around the capital.
Lawyers, journalists must be allowed to work
The bench directed authorities to ensure that lawyers, journalists and others were not obstructed from discharging their professional duties.The direction came amid allegations that several lawyers had been detained during Saturday’s protests. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, who said he was detained by Delhi Police, told the court that he and other lawyers had faced violence.“It’s about citizens’ right to protest. The sense I got yesterday was that we were one step away from a police state. Kindly restore citizens’ right to protest peacefully in the capital. Yesterday, that right was destroyed,” Farasat said.Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also informed the bench that senior advocates Dinesh Dwivedi, Uttara Babbar and Farasat had been detained.
Section 163 notice board near SC ordered to be removed
The court directed the concerned authority to take down a notice board announcing the imposition of Section 163 of the BNSS in and around the Supreme Court premises, if it had not already been removed.“We have been informed that a notice board stating imposition of Section 163 BNSS in and around the vicinity of the Supreme Court has been put up,” the bench said.“We direct the authority concerned to take down this board, if not already done, so that citizens as well as lawyers can have access to justice,” it ordered.The direction was specifically linked to ensuring access to the court for citizens and members of the legal profession.
Peaceful protests permitted, but must remain within the law
The bench observed that peaceful assemblies must be allowed in accordance with law, particularly outside areas where prohibitory orders apply. It also reminded protesters that demonstrations must remain peaceful and should not instigate others.The hearing centred on the distinction between lawful regulation to maintain public order and restrictions that effectively prevent people from exercising their rights.In its October 9 order, the Supreme Court had said authorities could regulate Metro and railway operations but should not impose an outright prohibition on their movement. It had also asked the government to publicise transport arrangements and issue traffic advisories to minimise inconvenience.
Habeas corpus and related pleas listed for October 13
The court said petitions concerning alleged mass detentions and other connected matters would be heard alongside the main cases on October 13.One of these was a habeas corpus petition filed by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy concerning the detention of political leaders. The bench was also hearing Jha’s plea alleging disproportionate use of force, illegal detention, house arrests and harassment of protesters by Delhi Police.The allegations in Jha’s petition included claims of sexual harassment of women protesters. These were allegations before the court and had not been established by the directions issued on Sunday.
Centre issued notice in contempt plea
The bench issued notice to the Centre on a contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, which named Union home secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation chairperson D Thara as respondents.The petition alleged that authorities had breached the Supreme Court’s October 9 order by restricting public transport and detaining protesters on October 10.The earlier order had followed a plea challenging the closure of Metro stations and cancellation of trains ahead of the CJP mobilisation. The court had observed that notifications appeared to go beyond regulation and impose a complete ban on essential public transport.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The bench had said: “Upon our indication that a distinction exists between total ‘prohibition’ and the ‘regulation’ of metro and other train movements, the solicitor general of India has fairly agreed to impress upon the authorities to reassess such prohibitions.”The court’s latest intervention came as it considered allegations that the earlier directions had not been followed. It also reiterated its responsibility under Article 32 of the Constitution to protect and enforce fundamental rights.
