The Supreme Court heard several pleas addressing alleged non-compliance with its orders concerning the restriction of metro services, internet suspensions, and widespread detentions during recent protests, and subsequently issued notices in all related matters.

The Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the woman journalist whose complaint regarding alleged molestation and harassment, along with related proceedings involving an ACP, was under consideration, noting that she would cooperate with ongoing processes while remaining protected from adverse coercive measures.

The Bench also indicated that certain categories of journalists might require an additional level of protection, and agreed in principle that allegations of sexual violence and harassment against women journalists during the Delhi protests warranted consideration by a committee predominantly or exclusively comprising women.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard several pleas arising out of alleged non-compliance with its orders regarding the restriction of metro services, internet suspensions, and widespread detentions during recent protests on Thursday. It issued notices in all the matters related to the recent protests.


Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Indira Jaisingh, Menaka Guruswamy, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Hariharan and Arundhati Katju appeared for the Petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Union of India

Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh submitted, "This is a petition which specifically addresses the needs of women journalists during the course of duty employment, when they go on to a protest site that constitute a class by themselves. Because they not only have the right to speech, not only have the right to protest, but also the right to work. They go there to perform their duties in exercise of the right to work."

"Now, being women, they are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse, being pushed and pulled around, specially by male police officers. This is not to say that the women police officers did not push them, they did. That would constitute harassment, but when it happens by a male, it constitutes sexual harassment", she added.

The Court observed that journalists exercise the freedom of expression and the right to carry on a trade or profession simultaneously, making their protection particularly important.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the Court would need to examine the different levels of protection available to accredited journalists, freelancers, independent journalists, and influencers.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that identifying journalists had become increasingly difficult in the digital age due to individuals recording videos and uploading reels at protest sites.

CJI Surya Kant expressed that the Court was prima facie agreeable to such a composition and directed Jaising to submit details of affected women journalists and suggested names for the committee in separate sealed envelopes.

She requested a special inquiry committee, different from the committee constituted for police excesses, and that the committee should be in conformity with the Vishakha guidelines and should be headed by a woman chairperson. The composition of this committee was proposed to include retired women judges, members of the civil society, retired police personnel and activists of the civil society or representatives of NGOs. Additionally, she sought interim protections, praying that no coercive actions or counter-FIRs be instituted against any woman journalist who lodged complaints regarding violence or harassment.

The Court has also directed all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and other digital materials related to the protests.

In a special hearing held on Sunday, the Court had issued notice in a contempt plea against Union and Delhi officials for alleged non-compliance with its orders. Previously, it directed the concerned authorities to reconsider the complete prohibition on Metro services and train movements in New Delhi ahead of the October 10 protests.

The Supreme Court had also 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. Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal 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.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had turned down a request by Congress leaders Mallikarjun Kharge and Rahul Gandhi for an administrative meeting to submit a memorandum on issues including the Election Commission, student arrests, and transit disruptions, stating that doing so would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

A petition was also filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and others over alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the SIR of electoral rolls. The Court issued notice in the petition filed by him. 

Around 200 lawyers have also filed their representation/letter to the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking a resolution condemning the march to the Supreme Court on October 12, 2026, by Rahul Gandhi and his supporters.

The Supreme Court Bar Association had passed a resolution expressing its grave concern and condemning the reported use of excessive force against and detention of senior and young advocates, particularly women advocates, who were peacefully protesting in the Supreme Court area today against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The association has requested the Chief Justice of India to intervene in the matter.

The Court also heard 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, filed by AOR Ashima Mandla, 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.

Previously, the Court had remarked that while the authorities are fully permitted to enforce strict safety measures like frisking, CCTV surveillance, and extra security checks to prevent the entry of anti-social elements or unruly mobs, citizens remain entitled as a matter of right to access and avail public transport facilities.

Despite these directions, authorities closed entry/exit gates at 45 Delhi Metro stations, restricted Mail/Express trains entering New Delhi and Nizamuddin stations, and suspended internet services around protest zones such as Jantar Mantar.

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.

A plea is also pending before the Supreme Court seeking directions against all decisions, guidelines, directives, and software modifications initiated, approved, or implemented under Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The plea alleged that the decisions were taken without full Commission concurrence or contrary to the majority opinion of the other Election Commissioners.

Cause Title: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India & Ors.[W.P.(Crl.) No. 280/2026], Samriddhi Das v. Union of India and Ors. [Diary No. 64055 of 2026], MA Baby v. Union of India & Ors. [63560/2026] and various other connected matters.

Tags: