A contempt petition has been moved in the Supreme Court of India against the Union Home Secretary, the Delhi Police Commissioner, and the Chairperson of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), alleging that authorities wilfully ignored the Court’s October 9 direction by continuing to shut Metro stations and cancel train services around the Jantar Mantar protests. Filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, the petition asks the Court to initiate contempt proceedings over what it calls a conscious blanket shutdown that has severely crippled public life in the national capital.

The development follows an order passed by the Court in MA Baby v. Union of India . On October 9, a three-judge Bench considered Delhi Police communications directing DMRC to close 57 Metro stations and cancelling Mail and Express trains at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations. The Court found the notifications “overreaching” because they amounted to a complete ban on essential public transport, and clarified that Metro trains should not be prohibited outright; operations could be regulated proportionately. The Court had taken note of the security context while insisting on proportionality.

The fresh petition names Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and DMRC Chairperson D Thara as alleged contemnors. It says authorities maintained “a blanket shutdown across transit corridors”, persisted with train cancellations, and failed to issue clear traffic and transit advisories. The conduct is described as deliberate recalcitrance intended to bypass and undermine the Court's authority.

A Directive to Regulate, Not Ban

The Court’s observation that the notifications appeared “overreaching” is central to the contempt plea. The petition asks whether continued closures and cancellations cross the line from permissible regulation to impermissible defiance. Tripathi inspected GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya Metro stations around 9:30 pm on October 9 and found entry gates closed, with exit permitted only through manually regulated gates. He alleges Gate No. 2 at GTB Nagar was locked and Gate Nos. 1 and 3 were either closed or restricted to exiting passengers. He recorded a video of the situation, the petition says.

The petitioner also relies on DMRC announcements on its official X account. One said entry and exit at the concerned stations would remain closed from 9 pm on October 9 until 6 pm on October 10, subject to review by security agencies. A later announcement reduced the number of closed stations from 57 to 45 but continued the restrictions. Even after the reduction, entry and exit were still shut at multiple stations, the petition points out, arguing that a reduced number does not cure the fundamental defect: closures remained in place despite the Court’s directive.

“Crippled Public Life” and Stranded Commuters

The petition highlights the practical impact on Delhi residents. It states that the restrictions have crippled public life and caused hardship to commuters, stranding essential travellers because the transit system was not allowed to function even in a regulated manner. It also alleges that authorities failed to issue or publicize transparent traffic and transit advisories.

Tripathi says he visited Jantar Mantar around 8:30 pm on October 9 and found only police and paramilitary personnel present. He questions the justification for continuing blanket Metro access restrictions when the protest site appeared to be under security control. This factual assertion supports the proportionality argument: if the security concern was addressed by a heavy police presence, there was no reason to keep essential stations shut.

The petition alleges that continued closures of station gates, despite the Supreme Court’s order, amount to wilful and deliberate disobedience. It seeks to bring the officials within the Court’s contempt jurisdiction, which allows courts to punish conduct that obstructs or undermines the administration of justice. The key legal threshold is whether the violation was intentional and material rather than inadvertent or trivial.

Interim Relief and What Happens Next

As an interim measure, the petition asks the Court to revoke blanket prohibitory orders affecting Metro and railway operations and to ensure services run on a regulated schedule with immediate public notice. This would return authorities to the position contemplated by the October 9 order: transport may be regulated, but not wholly prohibited.

The petition was filed through advocate-on-record Chand Qureshi. No hearing date has been fixed yet, and the Supreme Court has not issued notice to the respondents. The next step will be for the Court to consider whether a prima facie case of contempt exists and, if so, to seek responses from the three officials.

For legal practitioners, the case tests the enforceability of interim directions in public-interest litigation. It may clarify how much discretion authorities hold when implementing court-approved security measures, and what evidence establishes contempt when a direction is followed only partially. For Delhi commuters, the immediate question is whether the Court will act quickly to ensure Metro services are not shut down again on the eve of future protests.