SUPREME COURT ISSUES INTERIM ORDER RESTORING NORMAL DELHI METRO OPERATIONS, REVIEWING BARRICADES & LIFTING PROHIBITORY NOTICES NEAR COURT:

The Supreme Court, during a special Sunday hearing, issued notice on a contempt petition against Union and Delhi officials over alleged non-compliance with earlier directions on metro services, internet access and detentions linked to recent protests. Emphasising citizens’ fundamental rights to peaceful assembly and free movement, the Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana ordered the immediate removal of Section 163 BNSS notice boards placed around the Supreme Court premises so that access to justice remains unimpeded. Authorities were also directed to file a detailed affidavit explaining the closure of 45 metro stations and the restrictions imposed on public transport.

The Court was examining contempt petitions that followed its earlier order requiring the authorities to reconsider the complete prohibition on metro and train services in New Delhi ahead of the October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Habeas corpus pleas concerning lawyers detained by the Delhi Police during the demonstrations were also listed.

In its interim directions, the Court stated that metro and rail facilities must operate normally unless regulations become necessary to address genuine threats to public order under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Free movement of people and traffic throughout the city is to be permitted, subject only to ordinary traffic regulations, and the continued need for barricades is to be reviewed at once in light of prevailing law-and-order and traffic conditions. Internet services are to remain undisturbed, and smooth movement of citizens is to be ensured in accordance with law. The Bench further clarified that no person may be detained except through the procedure established by law, particularly outside areas where Section 163 orders are in force. Having been informed that a notice board announcing Section 163 restrictions in the vicinity of the Supreme Court had been erected, the Court directed its immediate removal so that there would be no apprehension regarding free ingress and egress to the Court or any other court of law. All applications, including unlisted matters, were ordered to be tagged with the main proceedings for hearing on Tuesday.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union and Delhi Police, denied the allegations of willful non-compliance and maintained that the Delhi Metro had operated on its normal Saturday schedule on 10 October, with 271 trains and the full complement of 4,157 trips. He acknowledged that entry and exit at 45 of the 303 stations had been restricted on the advice of law-enforcement agencies, and undertook to file a detailed reply justifying the measures and addressing the habeas corpus claims.

Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners—including Kapil Sibal, Menaka Guruswamy, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shadan Farasat and others—submitted that the restrictions went far beyond the limited prohibitory zone. They described widespread detentions of citizens, including lawyers, from trains, residential areas and locations well outside the 4 km perimeter around Jantar Mantar; suspension of internet services contrary to the principles laid down in Anuradha Bhasin; and the continued closure of metro stations despite the Court’s earlier directions. Guruswamy highlighted the scale of the action, noting reports of approximately 7,000 detentions and the setting up of 45 detention centres, and urged the Court not to grant further time that might allow continued non-compliance. Sankaranarayanan and Farasat drew attention to specific instances of alleged excess force against peaceful protesters and legal professionals.

The Court recalled its previous order directing the authorities to revisit the original plan to close 57 stations, to publicise any revised decision widely, and to issue fresh traffic advisories. It now required a short affidavit showing cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated, and asked for a pictorial representation of the 45 stations that remained closed so that the impact on accessibility could be properly assessed. Metro services were directed to continue on the normal schedule, subject only to the public-order limitations recognised by the Constitution.

The petitions arise against the backdrop of protests held on 10 October following reports that two Election Commissioners had recorded multiple written dissents against administrative decisions taken under the Chief Election Commissioner. A separate challenge to those decisions remains pending.