The Supreme Court on Sunday convened an urgent special sitting and directed that metro and railway services in Delhi must function normally, internet connectivity remain unhindered, and no individual be illegally detained, particularly peaceful and unarmed protesters assembling beyond areas where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are in force. The bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice in a contempt petition alleging willful violation of its October 9 order, which had directed authorities to reconsider a complete ban on public transport ahead of mass protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The court also ordered the immediate removal of a notice board proclaiming the imposition of Section 163 BNSS in and around the Supreme Court premises, observing that such signage could create apprehension about access to justice. Lawyers, journalists, and other professionals must not be hindered in discharging their professional duties, the bench added.

The proceedings arose from a contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation chairperson D. Thara, alongside a habeas corpus petition by senior advocate and Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha MP Menaka Guruswamy challenging the detention of several political leaders and thousands of citizens. The petitions alleged that despite the court’s October 9 order—which held that metro services could be regulated but not prohibited outright, and directed authorities to issue traffic advisories and widely publicize the revised decision—the police on October 10 shut 45 metro stations, restricted trains at New Delhi and Nizamuddin stations, suspended internet services, and detained over 7,000 people across nearly 45 detention centers.

Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners painted a grim picture of the previous day’s crackdown. Kapil Sibal submitted that police were detaining people from trains and areas well beyond the four-kilometer radius around Jantar Mantar where Section 163 was in force, and that 45 metro stations remained closed despite the court’s order. Shadan Farasat told the bench that he was physically assaulted and thrown into a moving bus after being picked up. “Question is not only about lawyers. We don't have special rights as lawyers. Yesterday, the situation in the city was remarkably suppressive. A person was not allowed to stand there. I was thrown in a moving bus after I was picked up. It's about citizens' right to protest. The sense I got—yesterday, we were one step away from a police state. Kindly restore citizens' right to protest peacefully in the capital. Yesterday, that right was destroyed,” he said.

Gopal Sankaranarayanan drew the court’s attention to video clips showing uniformed personnel beating unarmed students and children. “It's not even a question of proportionality. First, necessity is to be seen. Unarmed children—to beat, kick them, scuffle with them was completely and utterly uncalled for,” he submitted. He also highlighted that Section 163 BNSS boards had been placed near the Supreme Court, an act he termed “shocking.”

Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in person, submitted that the disruption of metro and internet had stripped citizens of their basic constitutional rights. She said around 7,000 people were detained without the state providing official figures, and 45 detention centers were set up across Delhi. “The last time this court had to consider such challenges was at the time of the emergency. We come back to you almost 50 years later because the court at that point passed ADM Jabalpur. Your lordships have the opportunity not to do that,” she argued.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisted by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, disputed the allegations. He submitted that the habeas corpus petition may not survive as the detained individuals had been released. On the contempt plea, he argued that there was no curtailment of metro services on October 10, and that only entry and exit at 45 out of 303 metro stations were restricted as a precautionary measure. He assured the court that all stations had reopened by 10 p.m. on October 10, trains were running according to schedule, internet services had been restored, and a full complement of 4,157 train trips operated that day.

The court, however, noted that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case of violation of its October 9 order. “Having considered the submissions… we are of the opinion that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case. Accordingly, we issue notice upon the alleged contemnors,” the bench recorded. It directed the authorities to file counter affidavits and a compliance report by October 13.

Interim directions to restore normalcy

Taking note of the submissions and the assurances given by the Solicitor General, the bench passed a set of interim directions to remain in force until the next hearing. First, metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally unless regulation is required to keep in mind reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Second, free movement of people in the city shall be ensured subject to law and order or traffic regulations, and the imposition of barricades on roads shall be reviewed forthwith. Third, internet facilities shall function unhindered, though the court clarified that it was not taking away the authorities’ powers under the Information Technology Act. Fourth, there shall be no illegal detention, particularly of peaceful and unarmed assemblies beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation. Fifth, any notice board stating the imposition of Section 163 near the Supreme Court shall be taken down immediately. Sixth, lawyers, journalists, and other professionals shall not be impeded in the discharge of their professional duties.

Justice Bagchi also indicated that the court wished to be addressed on the larger question of how far police measures sync with the requirement of expression under Article 19. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal responded that no Police Act or law can violate Article 19(2) except on grounds of public order.

The court ordered that all unlisted petitions mentioned during the hearing, including those filed by RJD MP Manoj Jha and advocate Aman Prasad, be tagged with the main contempt proceedings. Intervention and impleadment applications were also directed to be listed.

The matter is scheduled for further consideration on October 13, when the authorities are to file their compliance reports and responses. Until then, the interim directions remain in force, restoring a semblance of normalcy to a city that, according to the petitioners, had come one step away from a police state.