The Supreme Court of India on Monday said the ongoing protests in the national capital against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar must not be allowed to obstruct the functioning of the Court or the movement of lawyers, litigants and court staff, and that the institution should not be dragged into political disputes. A batch of petitions arising from the detention of advocates and the suspension of internet services during the demonstrations was listed for Tuesday.

A three-judge Bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, took note of mentions made by Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni and Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Pradeep Rai. Nadkarni flagged a petition filed by an independent lawyer, while Rai raised the SCBA's plea concerning the detention of lawyers and the internet shutdown.

"All these democratic activities should take place, but at least in Supreme Court functioning...," the CJI observed. "I have appealed to protesters also. All political parties also... The Supreme Court should not be dragged into this. There should not be any impediment in the movement of lawyers, litigants, court staff. They should be allowed to work."

Rai told the Bench that lawyers, litigants and staff were unable to reach the Supreme Court because of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) , barricades, Metro closures and internet shutdowns. He stressed that the Bar was discharging professional duties distinct from political activity. "We are not from any political party. The institution is performing institutional duties, and we are performing professional duties. Parties should not interfere in our domain," Rai said.

The proceedings unfolded amid two days of protests in Delhi over the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for the CEC's resignation.

A Bar under strain

During the mentioning, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan drew the court's attention to alleged police excesses against lawyers, saying senior advocates had been "dragged through streets". He said advocate Shadan Farasat was physically dragged while advocates Dinesh Dwivedi and Uttara Babbar were detained in buses. He also claimed that prohibitory orders under Section 163 BNSS had not been made available in the public domain, and that the constitutional validity of one provision had been challenged. He said videos of the police action would be produced in court.

Sankaranarayanan submitted that the police were allowing "excesses" and that "hooligans are running around attacking children" . He said children had been hit on the head with lathis and that police were "proudly saying we have done this" . He urged the Bench to send a strong message to the police, saying he had never seen a senior advocate being dragged through the streets.

The CJI said he did not want to say anything on that aspect at present, but affirmed that "every lawyer, every member of the bar has the right to be a part of the peaceful protests, wherever the identified locations are there" . He agreed to list the matter on Tuesday along with connected petitions .

Sunday's special sitting and contempt notices

Monday's observations build on an extraordinary Sunday sitting, when a Bench of Justices Bagchi and Mohana took up petitions challenging restrictions imposed on Saturday that petitioners alleged violated the court's Friday order directing that Metro and train movement should not be completely halted.

Finding a prima facie case of contempt, the court issued notices to the Union government, the Delhi Police and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), directing them to file counter-affidavits and compliance reports by Tuesday. Pending further proceedings, the Bench ordered that Metro and rail services should function normally unless restrictions were required to address threats to public order under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The court also directed that there should be no illegal detention of unarmed citizens, and that lawyers, journalists and other professionals must not be stopped from performing their professional duties. It recorded the Solicitor General's assurance that such persons would not be obstructed. The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association has separately filed a petition challenging police action against lawyers.

Political friction over the protests

Monday's observations also carried political significance. The CJI had on Sunday declined a request from Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi for a meeting on issues relating to the SIR, pointing out that such grievances should be raised on the judicial side. The Congress party subsequently called for an Opposition march to the Supreme Court, led by Gandhi, seeking a halt to the SIR and the CEC's resignation.

Rai told the Bench that he had issued a statement urging political parties not to drag the court into the controversy and to act responsibly.

The petitions also allege the illegal detention of more than 6,000 people, house arrests of leaders including Arvind Kejriwal, Mamata Banerjee and Pinarayi Vijayan, and harassment of women protesters. Internet restrictions, the SCBA argued, had affected e-filing, virtual hearings and access to cause lists, leaving many young lawyers who depend on the Metro stranded.

The CJI reiterated that courts were essential services and could not be allowed to be paralysed, and that democratic dissent must be allowed while court functioning was protected.

The Bench agreed to take up the batch of connected petitions on Tuesday, when the responses to the contempt notices are also due.