In a special Sunday sitting, the Supreme Court of India directed that no person shall be illegally detained, that Delhi Metro and railway services shall run normally, and that internet connectivity shall remain unhindered, while ordering an immediate review of barricades across Delhi after Saturday's police crackdown on protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana was hearing a contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi alleging violation of the court's October 9 order on public transport, and a habeas corpus petition by senior advocate and Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Menaka Guruswamy challenging the detention of political leaders and reporting that about 7,000 people had been detained across the city.

The court assembled for the urgent hearing after lawyers described a curfew-like situation, with metro stations shut, internet services suspended, railway stations closed, and large numbers of people allegedly picked up from streets, trains and even residences.

Urgent Hearing After Protest Crackdown

The contempt case arose from the October 9 order in earlier proceedings, in which the court had said that notifications issued ahead of the protests appeared to be overreaching because they imposed a complete ban on essential public transportation. The court had directed the authorities to permit Metro trains and other rail services to operate in a regulated manner, to publish traffic advisories for smooth movement of vehicles, and to file a compliance report within four days.

At the special hearing, senior counsel told the Bench that those directions had been flagrantly violated. They said New Delhi and Nizamuddin railway stations remained closed, no traffic advisories were issued, and the Metro was not functioning. Menaka Guruswamy urged that the habeas corpus plea was not confined to named political leaders but concerned widespread illegal detention, with 45 detention centres reported across Delhi and opposition leaders, including Members of Parliament, barricaded inside their homes. Other lawyers described being picked up while walking peacefully; one said she and about 150 other lawyers had been marching when four of them were taken away in a prison van. Another told the court he had been thrown into a moving bus after being detained.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta disputed the allegations. He said the Delhi Metro had functioned normally, although 45 of its 303 stations had been closed to maintain law and order, and that all stations had reopened by 10 p.m. on October 10, trains were running and internet connectivity had been restored. He denied that anyone had been illegally detained and argued that the habeas corpus petition had become infructuous because the named detenues had been released.

Prima Facie Case of Contempt

After hearing the parties, the court found that the contempt petition established a prima facie case and issued notice upon the alleged contemnors. Notices were issued to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Chairperson D. Thara. They were directed to file counter-affidavits, including a compliance report in terms of the October 9 order, by October 13; their personal presence was dispensed with. Notice was also issued in the habeas corpus petition.

Interim Directions for the City

The court proceeded to pass interim directions for the functioning of the city. "Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally until and unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2) ," it ordered. It directed that free movement of people in the city shall be ensured subject to law and order and traffic regulations, and that barricades on roads shall be reviewed forthwith. Internet facilities should function unhindered.

Addressing the detention allegations, the court noted that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 applied only in a limited area, and said: "There shall be no illegal detention , particularly in cases of peaceful unarmed assemblage of people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation." The court also noted that a notice board stating that Section 163 of the BNSS had been invoked in and around the Supreme Court premises had been put up, and directed the authorities to take it down if not already done, so that there was no apprehension about entry to and exit from the Supreme Court or any other court.

The order further recorded that lawyers, journalists and other professionals must not be obstructed. "Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever," the court said. The Bench clarified that its interim directions did not take away the authorities' statutory powers to impose lawful restrictions, including those available under the Information Technology Act , when public order so required.

Three orally mentioned petitions raising similar issues were ordered to be served on the Solicitor General's office and tagged with the present matters, along with applications for intervention and impleadment. The court directed that the matters be listed on October 13 for further consideration, when it will also examine whether the police measures adopted during the demonstrations conform to the constitutional protections for peaceful expression and free movement.