SC Issues Contempt Notices Over Delhi Metro Closures & Detentions
During a special Sunday hearing addressing widespread administrative curbs in the national capital, the Supreme Court of India observed that while citizens hold an undeniable fundamental right to peaceful protest, the manner and execution of such demonstrations cannot bypass the statutory ambit of the Police Act. A vacation bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that fundamental liberties cannot be exercised outside the procedure established by law, emphasizing that regulatory compliance is indispensable to maintaining civil order. Taking serious view of allegations that transport lifelines were paralyzed despite prior judicial instructions, the bench ruled that a prima facie case of contempt was established regarding violations of the court's earlier order directing authorities not to shut down rail and metro operations during demonstrations in Delhi.
Contempt Notices to Top Brass: Orders on Metro Lines, Internet, and BNSS Section 163
Acting on a contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, the apex court issued formal notices to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and the Chairperson of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), directing them to submit counter-affidavits alongside compliance reports by October 13, 2026, while granting them temporary exemption from personal appearance. The court issued explicit directives instructing the Central Government to ensure the Delhi Metro operates on its routine schedule and that internet connectivity remains undisrupted across the capital, clarifying that this does not abrogate statutory powers under the Information Technology Act. Furthermore, the bench directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that legal counsel, journalists, and essential personnel face no impediments while discharging their professional duties. Emphasizing that local prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) cannot be arbitrarily extended to distant satellite zones like Gurugram, the bench ordered the immediate removal of any signboards invoking Section 163 placed around the perimeter of the Supreme Court to preserve unimpeded access to justice for litigants and lawyers.
Heated Courtroom Exchange: Counsel Flag Mass Detentions as Centre Defends Transit Curbs
The hearing witnessed intense arguments from senior counsel representing affected groups, opposition lawmakers, and detainees. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MP Manoj Jha, argued that police forces engaged in arbitrary detentions from incoming passenger trains and rounded up individuals located kilometers away from the designated protest radius near Jantar Mantar, pointing out that entry and exit across 45 metro stations were suspended contrary to the court’s October 9 order. Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy, presenting a habeas corpus petition on behalf of detained political figures, submitted that nearly 45 makeshift detention centers had been set up across the city with approximately 7,000 individuals taken into custody. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, who was briefly detained during Saturday's demonstrations, alleged heavy-handed police treatment against lawyers and urged the restoration of peaceful assembly rights, alongside senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan’s plea to clear security barricades. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that entry restrictions affected only 45 out of 303 stations—representing roughly 15 percent of the metro network—confirming that telecom connectivity and complete metro operations had been restored and the vast majority of detained persons released. The special bench reiterated the balanced principle earlier outlined by Chief Justice Surya Kant, affirming that while law enforcement agencies retain the right to manage security, civic life cannot be brought to a complete standstill or subject ordinary citizens to undue harassment.
