The Supreme Court has remarked that Courts are agnostic to the individual, be it a police officer, a lawyer or an ordinary citizen, who claims to be a victim of violence during the recent protests in Delhi.

It added that the response and the concern of the court to protect life and liberty are equally sensitive.

The remark came while the Court after counsel mentioned an application filed on behalf of retired police officers regarding their concerns for police safety during protests. 

The Court, in a special hearing held on Sunday, issued notice in a contempt plea against Union and Delhi officials for alleged non-compliance with its orders regarding the restriction of metro services, internet suspensions, and widespread detentions during recent protests.

The court ordered the immediate removal of Section 163 BNSS notice boards around the Supreme Court premises to ensure unhindered access to justice, while directing the authorities to submit a detailed affidavit explaining the closure of 45 metro stations and public transit curbs.

The Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing contempt petitions after it had previously directed the concerned authorities to reconsider the complete prohibition on Metro services and train movements in New Delhi ahead of the October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

Justice Bagchi remarked, "Courts are agnostic to the individual who is the subject, who is the victim. Be a police officer, be a lawyer or be an ordinary citizen. The response and the concern of the court to protect life and liberty is equally sensitive. So dont worry."

The counsel, appearing for the Police Officers, submitted, "I represent some police officers, and you would have seen the visuals from the protest where individuals who are supposed to be law-abiding citizens"

Justice Bagchi said, "Police officers do not have an independent right in maintenance of law and order over and above the state submission. So you please assist the solicitor and the additional solicitor..."

The Counsel added, "Brutality has also happened milords in so far as the police officers are concerned, milords, and massive brutality has happened to the police officers."

The Court, while issuing notice, directed the authorities concerned to submit a short affidavit showing cause why contempt proceedings shall not be initiated against them. It has been reported that the plea filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi sought contempt proceedings against senior officials, including Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and DMRC Chairperson D. Thara, for willful non-compliance with the apex court's orders.

The Court noted that, with regard to the allegations made in the contempt petition, Solicitor General Mehta denied and disputed such allegations and contended that the Delhi Metro was functioning normally. However, some entry points had been closed. Entry and exit at 45 out of 303 Metro stations had been restricted.

The Court also ordered, "There shall not be legal detention, save and except by procedure established by law, particularly with regard to assembly of people beyond areas where Section 163 is in force. We have been informed that a notice board stating imposition of Section 163 BNSS in and around the vicinity of the Supreme Court has been put up. We direct the authorities to take down that board so that there is no apprehension as to access to justice, with regard to ingress and egress to the Supreme Court and any other court of law. All applications, including unlisted matters, will be tagged with the matter on Tuesday."

Accordingly, the matter will now be heard on Tuesday.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal also opposed lawyers taking to the streets to protest, while appearing in an impleadment application seeking to safeguard the institution and preserve the decorum of the legal profession. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat was seen being dragged out of protests by the Delhi Police on Saturday. The video had invoked mixed reactions on social media. Uppal argued that emotions were running high on both sides and that public demonstrations by legal professionals were harming the profession itself.

The protests were held on October 10 after it was reported by The Indian Express that Election Commissioners Dr Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Dr Vivek Joshi registered written dissents on record on at least 14 separate occasions over a 10-month period. The objections pertained to administrative decisions and official orders issued without the knowledge, consent, or participation of the full Commission, four of which occurred on a single day.

Cause Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors.[W.P.(Crl.) No. 280/2026] and MA Baby v. Union of India & Ors. [63560/2026]

Tags: