Supreme Court steps in over Delhi protest curbs, orders review of barricades and illegal detentions

The Supreme Court on Sunday held a special sitting to hear petitions alleging police excesses, illegal detentions and restrictions on public movement during the Cockroach Janata Party’s (CJP) protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Delhi on October 10.

A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued a series of directions concerning public transport, barricades, internet access, detentions and the right to peaceful protest. The court stressed that while authorities could regulate public movement to maintain law and order, restrictions must not become a blanket prohibition on the exercise of fundamental rights.

The bench directed that metro and railway services should operate normally unless restrictions were necessary to address disturbances to public order under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It said people must be allowed to move freely across Delhi, subject to traffic regulations, and ordered authorities to review the need for barricades immediately in view of law-and-order and traffic conditions.

The court also directed that internet services remain undisturbed in accordance with the law. Justice Bagchi clarified that the bench was not curtailing the authorities’ powers under the Information Technology Act.

On detentions, the court stressed that no person could be detained except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly in the case of peaceful, unarmed assemblies outside areas covered by prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. It further ordered authorities to remove the notice board announcing Section 163 restrictions in and around the Supreme Court, if it had not already been taken down, to ensure that access to justice, including entry to and exit from the court, was not impeded.

The bench said advocates must not be prevented from performing their professional duties and urged lawyers and protesters to remain peaceful and refrain from instigating others. Justice Bagchi observed that the court was not taking sides in the dispute but was duty-bound to intervene when fundamental rights were at stake under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Solicitor general says services restored

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that Delhi Metro services had been fully restored, with all stations open since 10 pm on Saturday, and that trains were operating normally. He also said internet services had been restored and that 4,750 train services had operated according to schedule.

Mehta said the Delhi Metro network had 303 stations, of which 47 had been closed or had access restricted during the security arrangements. He also argued that the habeas corpus petition might no longer survive because the people allegedly detained had been released.

Justice Bagchi, however, sought clarification on railway advisories issued in connection with the protest and asked the authorities to respond to the petitions by Tuesday.

The special sitting followed an order passed on Friday, October 9, in M.A. Baby v Union of India, in which the Supreme Court addressed concerns about restrictions on public transport ahead of the protest. A Delhi Metro notification had proposed closing 57 stations, while railway services to New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin stations were also affected by the security measures. The court said services could be regulated where necessary but should not be prohibited outright, adding that any decision affecting commuters should be widely publicised.

Petitioners allege illegal detentions and excessive force

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha, alleged that police had picked up protesters from trains and from locations more than four kilometres from Jantar Mantar, where Section 163 restrictions were in force. He also raised concerns about the alleged suspension of internet services and the closure of 45 metro stations.

Advocate Farasat alleged that he had been brutalised by police personnel, picked up and thrown into a moving bus. Describing the situation in Delhi as suppressive, he warned that the city was “one step away from POLICE STATE”. Senior advocate N Hariharan said lawyers had been prevented from moving freely, while senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan presented screenshots from videos that he said showed unarmed children being beaten and kicked. He also questioned the imposition of Section 163 restrictions outside the Supreme Court and called for free movement, the removal of barricades and accountability for alleged police excesses. He further raised concerns about personnel allegedly operating without visible identification badges.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde argued that access to justice included lawyers’ ability to meet their clients. He alleged that lawyers had been beaten and threatened with the registration of first information reports at police stations. A woman advocate told the bench that she and around 150 lawyers had been walking peacefully when four people were taken away in a prison van. She alleged that a woman police officer had pushed and hustled her and that some personnel were not wearing badges.

Advocate Shoeb Alam invoked Article 19 of the Constitution, arguing that the restrictions had affected fundamental rights. Justice Bagchi said Article 19(2) allowed reasonable regulation in the interests of public order but did not permit a blanket prohibition on those rights.

Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing for some police officers, alleged that personnel had themselves been subjected to violence. Justice Bagchi responded that police officers did not possess an individual right to maintain law and order independently of the state’s legal framework, adding that the protection of life and liberty was equally important. The bench said intervention applications would be listed for consideration.

Habeas corpus plea raises questions over political leaders’ detention

Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared in person in a habeas corpus petition alleging that around 7,000 people had been detained and that 45 detention centres were being used. She claimed that opposition leaders had been picked up and that some Members of Parliament had been barricaded inside their homes.

Guruswamy argued that disrupting metro services restricted people’s freedom of movement and questioned whether the restrictions amounted to an undeclared emergency. Referring to Article 358 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling in ADM Jabalpur, she urged the court to issue notices to the Union Home Secretary and a metro official and direct the revocation of prohibitory orders.

Her petition challenged the alleged detention of Arvind Kejriwal, Mamata Banerjee, Pinarayi Vijayan and Manik Sarkar, claiming they had been picked up from their homes and taken to undisclosed locations.

Jha’s petition separately alleged excessive force and illegal detentions or house arrests involving protesters, students, advocates and political leaders. It also raised allegations of sexual harassment of women, restrictions on public transport and mobile internet, road closures and the use of phone jammers. The petition cited reports of more than 6,000 detentions, 250 train cancellations and the closure of 45 metro stations, and sought a declaration that the actions taken on October 9 and 10 were illegal and unconstitutional.

Contempt petitions seek accountability

The court also considered a contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who alleged that the authorities had failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions concerning public movement and transport. The petition sought contempt proceedings against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation chairperson D Thara.

A separate contempt petition filed by Aman Prasad against the Delhi Police Commissioner alleged that unarmed protesters had been assaulted and detained, women had been manhandled and police personnel had acted without wearing identification badges. It referred to alleged incidents near Jantar Mantar, INA and Dilli Haat, as well as the alleged assault of Farasat near the Safdarjung Airport flyover. The petition also alleged that Scroll journalist Ayush Tiwari had been detained while covering the protests.

The petitioners argued that these actions violated earlier court directions, including an order in proceedings initiated by Tripathi concerning protests by students in July and the October 9 order in M.A. Baby v Union of India. The earlier proceedings initiated by Tripathi had led to the formation of a high-powered inquiry committee to examine the use of force, the treatment of women and police accountability.

The Supreme Court issued notices to the alleged contemnors, directing them to file affidavits and a compliance report by Tuesday. It also ordered that the petitions that had not been listed earlier be tagged with the contempt proceedings.

The allegations made by the petitioners have yet to be established. The court’s directions seek to ensure that security arrangements do not unnecessarily interfere with public movement, access to justice or the right to peaceful assembly.