Supreme Court asks Centre to lift blanket curbs on Delhi Metro and trains before protests

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Centre and Delhi Police to reconsider sweeping restrictions on Metro and railway services ahead of Saturday’s proposed protests in Delhi, stressing that security arrangements must not bring public transport to a complete halt or cause unnecessary hardship to millions of residents.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said the authorities could regulate train movements to prevent unlawful gatherings, but could not impose a blanket prohibition that disrupted essential public services.

“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.

Emphasising the need for proportionate measures, the court remarked: “You will not use a hammer to kill a fly.”

The bench said that while authorities had a responsibility to maintain law and order, they must also protect residents’ ability to travel freely and access public facilities. The intervention came amid concerns over proposed restrictions affecting 57 Metro stations and the cancellation of several trains ahead of the October 10 demonstration at Jantar Mantar.

Centre agrees to reconsider blanket transport restrictions

The court passed its order after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police, agreed to reconsider the restrictions in response to the bench’s concerns about their proportionality.

The bench clarified that, since the protest organisers were not before it at that stage, the immediate question was whether the complete stoppage of Metro and railway services needed to be reconsidered.

The order recorded the solicitor general’s assurance that the authorities would review the prohibition and permit Metro and other trains to operate in a regulated manner, ensuring that Delhi residents did not face unnecessary inconvenience.

“Since the organisers are not before us, the limited issue before the court is whether the complete stoppage of metro and rails requires reconsideration,” the bench said.

It added that the solicitor general had agreed to reconsider the restrictions and allow train movements to continue in a regulated manner, keeping in mind the principle of proportionality.

“In terms of the assurance, we direct that a considered decision shall be taken to allow movements of metro and other trains so that no inconvenience is caused to the people and wide publicity is also given,” the order stated.

The court further directed the authorities to publish revised advisories to ensure commuters were informed of the arrangements and did not face hardship while travelling within the city.

‘Not everyone has a car’: Court flags commuters’ hardship

The bench said its primary concern was the impact of the restrictions on ordinary residents rather than the organisers or participants in the proposed demonstration.

“Our concern is not with respect to organisers or protesters. Our concern is about hundreds of thousands of people, coming from Greater Noida, South Delhi or livelihood… including students, those going to work,” the judges told Mehta.

“We are talking about common citizenry of the national capital,” the bench added, pointing out that not everyone owned a car or had access to private transport.

The judges said students, office-goers and people travelling to earn their livelihood should not be made to bear the consequences of restrictions imposed to prevent a possible law-and-order problem.

The bench also questioned the wording of a communication issued by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), which referred both to reducing train frequency and closing station gates from 9 pm on Friday until further orders.

“The word ‘closure’ in the metro notice appears to sit uncomfortably with the expression ‘frequency reduced’. Reduction of frequency is regulation. Closure is prohibition,” the court observed.

It said the apparent contradiction reinforced the need to reconsider a complete stoppage of services rather than rely on blanket restrictions.

Centre cites earlier protests and security concerns

Mehta told the court that the government would revisit the measures in light of its observations, while maintaining that law-enforcement agencies needed sufficient flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.

The solicitor general cited protests held in July, which he said had continued beyond the one-day permission granted by the police. According to his submission, protesters had attempted to march towards Parliament, leaving more than 200 police personnel injured.

The bench acknowledged the need to protect citizens from unlawful and unruly elements. However, it said that responsibility had to be discharged without unnecessarily denying the public access to essential services.

The court also asked the authorities to reconsider road barricades and identify alternative routes wherever necessary, so that security measures did not impose avoidable restrictions on movement across the capital.

Railways cancels trains ahead of October 10 demonstration

The Supreme Court was informed that railway services had also been disrupted ahead of the proposed protest.

Indian Railways cancelled Mail and Express trains scheduled to arrive at or depart from New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin stations between 4 am and 2 pm on October 10, citing the possibility of severe road congestion around the stations.

The cancellations affected long-distance services, including the Howrah-New Delhi and Sealdah-New Delhi Rajdhani Express trains.

The restrictions prompted concerns among passengers who rely on these services to reach the capital or continue their journeys. The Supreme Court’s intervention sought to ensure that public transport continued operating under appropriate safeguards rather than being stopped entirely.

Separately, Delhi Police had asked the DMRC to consider closing entry and exit gates at 57 Metro stations from Friday night and reducing train frequency at the identified stations. The request cited the possibility of large crowds moving towards sensitive locations amid the planned demonstrations.

The proposed measures were to remain in place until the situation normalised. The court’s order called for a reconsideration of the blanket restrictions and revised public advisories to prevent unnecessary hardship to commuters.

Protest planned over electoral roll revision

The transport restrictions were introduced ahead of a demonstration scheduled for October 10 at Jantar Mantar, called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other groups demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The protesters have alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, describing the process as an attack on voters’ rights. The Election Commission has defended the revision exercise, maintaining that the process is intended to update electoral rolls and that eligible people whose names are missing can seek enrolment through the prescribed procedures.

Delhi Police denied permission for the CJP’s proposed demonstration and imposed prohibitory orders in the New Delhi district, citing public safety, law-and-order and traffic concerns.

The proposed restrictions on Metro and railway services became a separate point of contention, with lawyers arguing that preventing a demonstration should not result in widespread disruption for residents who had no connection with the protest.

Lawyers raise concerns over police visits to hostels

During the proceedings, the bench also heard concerns from lawyers about reports that police personnel had visited hostels, paying guest accommodations and other premises to discourage young people from joining the demonstration.

The court declined to comment on these allegations without relevant material being formally placed before it. It indicated that separate petitions could be filed for appropriate consideration.

The issue added to concerns about the extent of the security measures being introduced ahead of the protest. However, the bench’s immediate intervention remained focused on public transport and the need to avoid disproportionate restrictions on residents.

Supreme Court hearing follows efforts to secure urgent relief

The Supreme Court’s intervention came after an earlier attempt to secure an urgent hearing in a related matter pending before the Delhi High Court.

On Friday morning, the high court declined to hear the Indian Youth Congress’s challenge to the denial of permission for a separate protest against Gyanesh Kumar, scheduled for that day, and listed the matter for Monday.

Later, senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayan raised the issue before the Chief Justice of India, drawing attention to the proposed Metro restrictions, train cancellations and their likely impact on public movement.

The Supreme Court subsequently asked the organisers of the proposed October 10 demonstrations to appear before it at 2 pm, seeking details of the planned gathering as it considered the competing concerns surrounding peaceful assembly, public order and essential services.

The bench reiterated that security measures must be proportionate to the circumstances. Its order directed the authorities to reconsider the proposed blanket restrictions and ensure that Metro and railway services could continue in a regulated manner, with revised advisories publicised to minimise disruption for Delhi’s residents.