The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a writ petition challenging the prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the BNSS and Section 172 of the BNSS as unconstitutional.

A writ petition was mentioned assailing the quashing of actions taken in the aftermath of the incident of 10.10.2026; and consequential reliefs, the said measures having violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Yesterday, i.e. October 10, 2026, the Supreme Court, on a special Sunday hearing, 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 Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana agreed to list the matter, with other similar pleas, on Tuesday, i.e. October 13, 2026.

Chief Justice Kant remarked, "Supreme Court premises as of now...(pause) I don't want to say anything, but I am only requesting that we will not permit the Supreme Court to become a (part for this)...but every lawyer, every member of the bar has the right to be a part of the peaceful protests, wherever the identified locations are there..."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the Petitioner

The petition prays, "Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby declaring Section 172 of BNSS to be unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India"

The Plea is concerned with three linked executive measures: (i) a district-wide prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) operating across the New Delhi district; (ii) the simultaneous shutdown of public transport (57 Delhi Metro stations; cancellation of mail and express trains terminating at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin) scheduled to arrive at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin between 04:00 and 14:00 hrs on 10.10.2026; and suspension of mobile internet within a 4-km radius of the Janpath-Kartavya Path crossing; and (iii) mass detentions purportedly under Section 172 BNSS, a provision that confers a power of detention and removal on any police officer with no prior judicial scrutiny and no guidance on its exercise.

Sankaranarayanan submitted, "This is with reference to the protests that are happening and the fact that there is no public 163 order available at all. We have challenged that; we have challenged the vires of one of the sections also. I must share this at a time when our senior advocates are being dragged through the streets. Physically, Mr. Farasat was dragged through the streets; it was most unseemly, it should never have happened. At a time like that, I know you have repeatedly said that we must try and cooperate and exercise restraint, etc. Once, I would hope you to say the same to the police. That has not come from this bench so far. I am hoping that happens because the police, the excesses that they are allowing, the hooligans who are running around with sticks and lathis..."


The Plea, filed by AOR Ashima Mandla, prays for a direction declaring the Prohibitory Order dated 09.10.2026 purportedly passed in exercise of powers under Section 163 of BNSS as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Plea states that reports indicate that thousands of persons across several States, including students, farmers, activists and political figures, were detained or stopped from travelling to Delhi, in some cases removed from trains, aircrafts and vicinity of their homes, outside the 4-km radius.

The writ petition is filed against the Union of India, State of NCT of Delhi, Commissioner of Police, DMRC, Railway Ministry and Department of Telecommunications.

It is also prayed for directions to Respondent No. 3 (Commissioner of Police, Delhi) through its officers, authorised personnel, agents or employees not to give effect to, or take any action or otherwise act in furtherance of, the impugned Prohibitory Order dated 09.10.2026.

The Senior Counsel added, "What is happening is there are private hooligans who are not being detained or stopped. They are taking lathis. They have hit children on the head repeatedly. They have put out videos after that, which I will show you tomorrow, where they are proudly saying we have done this. The police does nothing. And repeatedly we are told to restrain ourselves. I don't know what we have done to restrain ourselves. I am shocked. I have never seen a senior advocate being dragged through the streets. Two more were detained in buses, Mr. Dwivedi and Ms. Uthara Babar."

He also submitted, "At some point, the bench will come to the rescue of the bar and will come to the rescue of the citizens of this country and send a strong message to the police. They come in droves, sit in seats reserved for lawyers, and they keep sitting there and not doing a single thing because they have bravery and courage—the cops—because they think they can get away with anything."

The Petitioner, who is a B.Tech student with no political affiliation, was travelling to the protest on 10.10.2026 and was thereby unable to reach the protest site owing to the curbs imposed by the Respondents.

It submits that Section 172 BNSS, as invoked, empowers a police officer to give directions to persons and to detain or remove any person who resists, refuses or ignores such directions. Unlike Section 170 BNSS (preventive arrest of a person known to design a cognizable offence) and Section 35 BNSS, it carries no threshold of reasonable apprehension of a cognizable offence, no record of reasons, and no outer limit tied to judicial review. Section 172 BNSS is therefore unconstitutional.

The Petition asserts, "The 57 stations ordered closed extended far beyond the vicinity of Jantar Mantar. It was later stated on behalf of the Union before this Hon’ble Court that entry and exit were in fact restricted at [45/47] of Delhi Metro’s 303 stations on 10.10.2026. Mobile internet is reported to have been suspended for 24 hours within a [4 km] radius of Jantar Mantar by a communication of 09.10.2026 issued to telecom providers by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Cell). On 10.10.2026 the proposed protest at Jantar Mantar was prevented, and more than 7,000 persons were reportedly detained across Delhi, including political leaders and organisers, many of them far from the protest site and outside the area covered by any prohibitory order, and some after being removed from trains. Advocates were reportedly prevented from reaching detained persons at police stations, and there are allegations of force against unarmed protesters by personnel without visible identification."

The petition raises the following questions of law: 

(a) Whether the expression “lawful directions” in Section 172 BNSS is void for vagueness and arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21?

(b) Whether detention of citizens for peacefully travelling to or participating in a protest is permissible under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(d), 21 and 22?

(c) Whether an order under Section 163 BNSS may be issued without the satisfaction, material facts and territorial and temporal limits that the law and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) require?

(d) Whether the law requires only intimation, and not permission, for a peaceful assembly, particularly one directed against the Government?

(e) Whether Articles 19 and 21 can be, in effect, suspended by executive action in the absence of any proclamation of Emergency, in light of the dissent of Khanna J. in ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) as vindicated in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017)?

"The Petitioner(s) submit that, taken together, these measures amount to a prior restraint on a peaceful, announced demonstration against a public authority; that they fail the test of proportionality; and that Section 172 BNSS, to the extent it enables en masse detention on the subjective satisfaction of the police, is manifestly arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), 19(1)(d) and 21", the plea says.

The plea also prays for direction to  Respondent No. 3 (Commissioner of Police, Delhi) to forbear from invoking Section 172 of BNSS or acting in purported exercise of Section 172 of BNSS to carry out en masse detention of people.

"Section 172 BNSS is weaker on every criterion: the power vests in any police officer; there is no prior or contemporaneous judicial application of mind; no right of representation; no duty to record reasons; no review; and no limit tied to the cessation of the apprehended danger. The Petitioner(s) anticipate reliance on the minority view that a power is not invalid because it may possibly be abused; the majority, however, rested on the absence of safeguards built into the provision itself, which is the vice here. The majority also affirmed that this Court cannot desert its role as sentinel on the qui vive on the assumption that other organs will protect fundamental rights", the plea says.

Raising serious concerns over citizens' fundamental rights to peaceful assembly and movement, the apex court had 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 Court 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.

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.

Cause Title: Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors. [Diary No. 64055 of 2026]

Tags: