The Delhi Police Commissioner has submitted a formal compliance affidavit to the Supreme Court of India, addressing a series of allegations regarding the treatment of detained protestors and the management of public infrastructure during recent demonstrations in the capital. The filing comes in response to a contempt petition that accused law enforcement of violating specific directives issued by the Apex Court on October 9 and October 11, which sought to balance public order with the fundamental right to peaceful assembly.

The central point of contention in the proceedings involves the alleged restriction of movement at metro stations, specifically GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya, as well as claims regarding the internet connectivity within the vicinity of major administrative hubs. In the latest affidavit, the Commissioner emphasized that law enforcement efforts were focused on maintaining public safety and that allegations of mistreatment were unfounded, noting that "detained protestors were served fresh, hot meals" while in police custody.

Operational Adjustments and Metro Access The contempt petition, which triggered this latest submission, argued that the closure of entry and exit gates at key metro stations—notably those serving large student and residential populations—served to stifle legitimate protest activities and inconvenienced the general public. The petitioners had sought court intervention, citing the October directives that explicitly required metro services to operate normally and the removal of specific barricades that were seen as excessive.

In his affidavit, the Commissioner addressed these concerns by detailing the internal logistics involved in managing large-scale demonstrations. The department contended that any decision to temporarily restrict access to certain transit points was a tactical choice made to prevent overcrowding and to manage the flow of traffic in volatile zones. The police maintained that these measures were not intended to impede the movement of citizens but were, rather, reactive security protocols necessitated by the scale of the gatherings.

The court’s earlier October orders had also explicitly instructed that internet facilities must "function unhindered" throughout the period of unrest. This directive was particularly significant in an era where digital communication is seen as an essential component of organizing, reporting, and disseminating information during public events. The petition alleged that these facilities were systematically throttled or suspended to prevent protestors from coordinating or documenting police actions, a claim that the authorities have now formally refuted.

Clarifying Internet Suspension Protocols Addressing the concerns regarding digital blackouts, the Commissioner’s affidavit clarified that the suspension of services was neither widespread nor indiscriminate. According to the document, "internet facilities were working unhindered and only cellular internet services were suspended owing to the law and order situation." This technical distinction is crucial for the legal arguments currently being weighed by the court, as it shifts the focus from a blanket denial of connectivity to a targeted, situational restriction.

The police further specified that these cellular service suspensions were enacted at their explicit request to the Central Government, strictly limited to a four-kilometre radius surrounding Raisina Hill. This area, which houses the most critical government administrative buildings and security installations in the country, has long been subject to stringent security protocols. The affidavit asserts that this decision was taken under extreme necessity to prevent potential security breaches and the spreading of inflammatory misinformation that could have further escalated the law and order challenges faced by personnel on the ground.

Legal observers following the case suggest that this justification places the onus on the court to determine whether the four-kilometre buffer zone was a proportionate response to the threat or an overreach that encroached upon the civil rights of residents and workers in that area. By providing a geographical limit and linking the suspension to a specific request made to the Central Government, the police are positioning their actions within the framework of emergency legal powers rather than arbitrary administrative control.

Addressing Detainee Welfare and Transparency Beyond the issues of movement and technology, the affidavit addressed the conditions under which those detained were held. In response to allegations of neglect and poor treatment, the Commissioner offered a detailed account of the care provided, highlighting that the authorities were conscious of the human rights of the individuals in their custody. The claim that detainees were provided with hot, fresh meals is a pointed rebuttal to suggestions that the police were employing punitive measures against those arrested for peaceful assembly.

The affidavit also confirmed compliance with the directive to remove the Section 163 notice board from the premises of the Supreme Court, a move that the court had seen as necessary to ensure that the judiciary’s physical space remained distinct from administrative law enforcement actions. By removing this signage, the police have signaled a willingness to respect the court’s directives regarding the symbolic and physical neutrality of the judicial environment.

The current situation remains in a state of procedural flux. The Supreme Court is expected to review the Commissioner’s affidavit in the coming week to determine whether the steps taken fulfill the spirit of its earlier instructions or if the contempt petition warrants further investigation. The legal community is watching closely, as the court’s ultimate ruling on this matter is expected to set a significant precedent for how police forces in major urban centers manage spontaneous protests while adhering to high-court mandated protocols.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing, where the petitioners are expected to respond to the claims made in the Commissioner's compliance report. As the case moves forward, the primary focus will likely remain on whether the police’s actions regarding internet blackouts and metro closures can be legally sustained as necessary and proportional, or if the court will find that the government’s interpretation of "law and order" necessitates a more rigorous legal check. For now, the administrative authorities have provided their record of events, and the focus rests entirely on the court’s assessment of these justifications against the backdrop of constitutional protections and the established directives.