Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant intervened on Saturday to secure the release of several lawyers, including women advocates, who were detained by Delhi Police while protesting peacefully near the Supreme Court complex ahead of a demonstration against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The intervention followed an urgent appeal by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), which raised concerns over the detention of advocates in and around the premises of the country's highest court. According to media reports, around 50 to 60 lawyers were detained and subsequently released following the CJI's intervention.
The incident occurred amid heightened security in the national capital ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other groups demanding Kumar's resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
CJI steps in after SCBA seeks urgent intervention
SCBA vice-president Rahul Kaushik said the association had received information about the detention of several advocates, including senior lawyers Uttar Babbar and PV Dinesh, as well as counsel Anne Mathew, KR Subhash Chandran and Sunita Hazarika.
According to Kaushik, the lawyers were taken to the Yamuna Sports Complex after being detained near the Supreme Court premises.
The association approached Surya Kant, urging him to intervene and ensure their release. The CJI subsequently contacted government authorities, following which the lawyers were released within hours.
Speaking about the development, Surya Kant confirmed that he had intervened verbally to secure their release. He said he believed the lawyers had been released following his intervention and added that he was out of town.
SCBA president Pradeep Rai had earlier described the detention of advocates from their chambers as deeply disturbing and demanded their immediate release. In a subsequent post on X, he thanked the CJI for intervening.
Rai also said he had spoken to Deputy Commissioner of Police Sachin Sharma, who assured him that any lawyer found to be in custody would be released immediately once the relevant details were provided.
The association later confirmed that the detained lawyers had been released, while urging the authorities to respect the dignity, safety and professional independence of members of the Bar.
Detentions amid sweeping security measures in Delhi
The detention of the lawyers came as Delhi Police stepped up security ahead of the CJP's planned demonstration at Jantar Mantar on October 10. The protest sought to press for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the SIR exercise.
Police had denied permission for the demonstration, citing security concerns and procedural requirements. Authorities deployed large numbers of police personnel and central armed police forces, erected barricades and imposed restrictions on movement across parts of the capital.
Hundreds of protesters were detained or arrested during the security operation, while measures affecting transport and access to public spaces drew criticism from demonstrators and civil society groups.
The police action also prompted concerns about preventive measures allegedly being used to discourage people from joining the protest. During proceedings on Friday, lawyers raised claims that police personnel had visited hostels, paying guest accommodation facilities and other premises to dissuade young people from participating.
The Supreme Court bench declined to comment on those allegations in the absence of material formally placed before it, indicating that separate petitions could be filed for appropriate consideration.
Supreme Court objects to blanket restrictions on public transport
The CJI's intervention over the lawyers' detention came a day after a bench led by him questioned sweeping restrictions on public transport imposed ahead of the same protest.
On Friday, a three-judge bench comprising Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana examined restrictions affecting Delhi Metro and railway services. The measures included plans to close entry and exit gates at 57 Metro stations, reduce train frequency and cancel several services arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations.
The bench stressed that security measures must remain proportionate to the situation and should not bring ordinary public life to a standstill.
“Stopping something and regulating are two different concepts. One can regulate but it is completely different to put a halt on everything… you cannot stop everything,” the bench observed, adding that authorities could not use a “hammer to kill a fly”.
The court said its concern was not limited to the organisers or protesters but extended to the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on public transport to reach workplaces, attend educational institutions and earn their livelihoods.
Authorities told to regulate services rather than shut them down
The Supreme Court directed the authorities to reconsider the restrictions and ensure that Metro and other railway services were not subjected to an outright prohibition.
It said services could operate in a suitable and regulated manner, with revised advisories widely publicised to prevent further inconvenience to commuters.
The bench also directed the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), railway authorities and Delhi Police's traffic wing to file a compliance report within four days. Authorities were asked to consider suitable alternative locations for peaceful and lawful protests, equipped with basic amenities.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, agreed to convey the court's concerns and ask the authorities to reconsider the restrictions.
The DMRC subsequently revised its initial plan to close 57 Metro stations, although restrictions continued to affect a number of stations ahead of the demonstration.
The court's intervention placed the balance between public order and ordinary civic life at the centre of the dispute. The subsequent detention of lawyers near the Supreme Court added another dimension to the controversy, prompting the SCBA to seek the CJI's direct intervention.
The developments unfolded against a wider dispute over the electoral roll revision exercise, with the CJP and other groups demanding accountability from the Election Commission while authorities sought to prevent unauthorised demonstrations in the capital.