Supreme Court Bars Illegal Detention, Directs Normal Metro, Internet Services During Protests
In an extraordinary Sunday sitting, the issued a strong rebuke to authorities over the mass detentions and transport disruptions that accompanied a planned protest in Delhi, directing the government to ensure no person is illegally detained and that metro and internet services remain functional. The bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also issued notice in a against three top officials—Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and Chairperson D. Thara—for alleged violation of the court’s order that prohibited a blanket closure of metro stations.
The hearing, convened at short notice on a holiday, was triggered by urgent applications alleging that authorities had flagrantly ignored the earlier directions while cracking down on a protest called by the at Jantar Mantar. Lawyers described the scene in the capital on as “one step away from a police state,” with over 7,000 people detained, including opposition leaders, students, journalists, and even lawyers.
A Special Sitting in Unprecedented Circumstances
The courtroom was packed with senior advocates and anxious litigants when the bench assembled. Justice Bagchi began by acknowledging the gravity of the situation, responding to a thank you from by stating, “We are always at the service of the nation.” The court expressed serious concern over what it termed “flagrant violations” of its earlier order, which had directed that metro operations should not be completely shut down and that traffic advisories must be issued.
, appearing for the Centre and , defended the actions, arguing that only 45 of 303 metro stations had restricted entry and exit, and that all stations were operational by 10 p.m. on . He further claimed that internet services had been restored by night. However, the bench was unconvinced and demanded a detailed affidavit specifying the locations of closed stations and whether any prior advisories had been issued.
Directions to Restore Normalcy
The court’s interim order contained several clear directives. First, it ordered that there shall be “no illegal detention, particularly in cases of of people beyond the area where under , are in force.” Second, it directed that Delhi Metro services must operate according to their normal schedule, and that internet services should not be disrupted, conditions. Third, it ordered the immediate removal of barricades and the withdrawal of around the Supreme Court and other courts to ensure free access for litigants and lawyers.
The court also explicitly stated that “lawyers, journalists, and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever.” This direction came after multiple accounts of lawyers being detained while trying to reach the court. told the bench that a former junior colleague of his was “lifted and taken away in a police van, taken nine kilometres away and dropped 11 kilometres away,” without any explanation. The police personnel involved did not even wear name badges, he noted.
and Emergency Comparisons
The bench also heard a petition filed by concerning the detention of political leaders, including MPs Mamata Banerjee, Derek O’Brien, and Dola Sen. Solicitor General Mehta argued that the petition had become infructuous as the detained leaders had been released. However, the court issued notice on the petition as well, requiring the government to justify the circumstances, manner, and justification of each detention.
Guruswamy, in her submissions, drew a sharp parallel to the 1975 Emergency. “Is this an undeclared Emergency? What is at stake here is whether citizens can peacefully protest. The last time we came to court against a situation like this was 50 years ago during the Emergency. Has been suspended?” she asked. pointed out that a board advertising the prohibitory order was fixed outside the court itself, prompting the bench to order its immediate removal.
Contempt Proceedings and Legal Accountability
The , filed by , alleged that the respondents—Union Home Secretary, Commissioner, and DMRC Chairperson—acted in of the order. The Supreme Court found a case made out and issued notice, directing the alleged contemnors to file counter-affidavits and a compliance report by . Their personal appearance was dispensed with for the time being.
The bench emphasized that the state must be held to account. Justice Bagchi observed, “We have to call upon the State. And what we propose to do in these habeas petitions is give the State the opportunity to satisfy three tests: first, the circumstances in which detention, as alleged, took place; second, the manner in which the detention took place; and third, the justification.”
The court’s repeated use of the rider “” signalled a deliberate balancing act. While affirming constitutional protections against illegal detention and upholding rights to free movement, access to courts, and internet connectivity, the bench preserved the state’s power to enforce to maintain public order. This nuanced approach ensures that the judgment does not create a blanket prohibition on all preventive measures, but rather demands proportionality and adherence to legal procedures.
Broader Implications for Civil Liberties and Policing
The case has significant implications for how the government and police handle planned protests in urban areas. The mass detention of over 7,000 people, many from locations far removed from the protest site, raises serious questions about the legality of under Section 163 BNSS. Legal experts note that the provision allows for temporary restrictions only within a defined area and for specific purposes; sweeping detentions across the capital may amount to an abuse of power.
The court’s direction to immediately review barricading measures and ensure free movement sets a precedent for future protest situations. By specifically protecting journalists and lawyers, the bench has underscored the vital role of the fourth estate and the legal profession in a democracy. The contempt proceedings, if pursued, could lead to personal liability for senior bureaucrats and police officers, reinforcing the principle that even the highest officials are answerable to the court.
Conclusion: A Reaffirmation of Constitutional Values
The Supreme Court’s intervention during a Sunday sitting reflects the urgency of protecting fundamental rights in the face of state overreach. While acknowledging the need for law and order, the court has drawn a clear line: peaceful assembly and free movement cannot be sacrificed through indiscriminate detentions and transport shutdowns. The orders to restore metro and internet services, remove barricades, and allow professionals to work unimpeded are immediate relief for the citizens of Delhi. More importantly, the contempt notice serves as a warning that disobedience of court orders will not be tolerated.
As the matter returns on for further hearing, the legal community will watch closely to see how the government responds. For now, the message from the Supreme Court is unambiguous: democracy thrives on the right to protest, and the state cannot snuff it out under the guise of maintaining order.
peaceful protest - illegal detention - habeas corpus - contempt proceedings - metro restrictions - fundamental rights - prohibitory orders
