The Supreme 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.

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

It also heard habeas corpus pleas after several lawyers were detained by the Delhi Police during protests.

The Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "Taking note of such submissions, we direct as follows: 1. Metro and rail facilities shall function normally, unless regulations are required to be imposed, keeping in mind disturbance to public order as envisaged under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 2. Free movement of people and traffic in the city... Similarly, free movement of people in the city shall be permitted, subject to traffic regulations. The requirement of the imposition of the barricades imposed shall be reviewed. The requirement of imposition of barricades shall be reviewed forthwith, keeping in mind law and order and other traffic conditions. 3. Internet facilities shall remain undisturbed...Smooth Movement of the people in the city shall be permitted in accordance with law..."

Senior Advocates KK Venugopal, Kapil Sibal, Menaka Guruswamy, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shadan Farasat, Sanjay Hegde and Arundhati Katju appeared for the Petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG SV Raju appeared for the Union of India

The Court also ordered, "4. 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."

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.

"We note that our order held as follows. In summation, the authorities concerned had been directed to revisit the earlier notification issued by the Delhi Metro for closure of 57 railway stations, keeping in mind that the operation of metro trains and other rail services may be regulated but not prohibited in appropriate cases. The order had also directed the authorities concerned to widely publish the reconsidered decision to avoid further inconvenience. Thirdly, the order had directed fresh traffic advisories in respect of free movement of vehicles in newspapers and online platforms. The order had also called upon the authorities to submit a compliance report by Tuesday, within four days, that is, 13th October", the Court ordered.

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.

Justice Bagchi said, "Matters are before us. But we understand that there are a number of lawyers, including maybe yourself, who wish to make unlisted mentions. We won't like, because of the assemblage here, to create either inconvenience to any lawyer or deny anyone an opportunity of hearing. So what we propose to do, is to go from the right to the left and give everyone an opportunity if they are making oral mentionings, thereafter we'll take up these matters. All right. In all probability, most of the mentionings would converge with these matters."

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, in Diary No. 63944/2026, said, "The issues are much larger than the issue of contempt...They are picking up people from trains, people outside a 4 km radius. There's a 4 km embargo. Then the suspension of the internet. Covered by the Anuradha Bhasin case. 45 metro stations kept closed despite orders. All of this is part of contempt."

He later added, "We want an interim order. It doesn't flow out of my petition; it flows out of what happened the other day. So I want an interim order that all trains in India from their place of origin will come to Delhi without any restriction, because there can be no 163, there can be no 19(2)...Those are the only restrictions that can be placed. Number two, there is no 163 outside of the 4 km, correct. An interim order: there can be no detentions; there can be no impediment to traffic; there can be no barricades outside. That's the second order I want...The third order I want is that 19(1)(a), I can peacefully protest; nobody can, milord, regulate that as long as it is peaceful. I should be allowed to peacefully protest even within the 4 km."

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat submitted, "I was also brutalized yesterday along with a lot of large number of lawyers. But our question is not only in respect of lawyers. The question we are raising is that we are part of a larger subset of citizens of this country. We don't have any separate special right as lawyers. We appreciate that...They were just picking and throwing people. My specific instance was I was thrown in a moving bus after being picked up. That is what happened to me. It's about the citizen's right to protest."

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan highlighted targeted police action against legal professionals, noting that senior advocates Dinesh Dwivedi, Uttar Babbar, and Shadan Farasat were detained at various locations well outside the Jantar Mantar perimeter—including near Safdarjung and during a peaceful march outside the Supreme Court.

"The second, if you notice the nature of the violence that's being perpetrated—if you see those videos one by one which we have placed, you'll find that it's not even a question of proportionality. The first question is necessity; then comes proportionality. Necessity to detain individuals moving peacefully, unarmed children, students, to beat them, hit them, kick them, and have scuffles with them was completely and utterly uncalled for. This is something we have raised with your lordships regarding the June incident, and that is being dealt with separately", he added.

An Advocate appearing for the retired police officers submitted, "I represent some police officers...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. Fair enough. So, you please assist the solicitor."

Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam submitted that individuals travelling on trains were being subjected to widespread detentions, a phenomenon increasingly brought to light through micro-journalism.

He also highlighted that passengers entering Delhi were being forcibly pulled out of trains, while others were being detained from areas outside the capital, including NCR regions such as Gurgaon and Noida. Furthermore, residential premises were raided in a concerted attempt to prevent citizens from reaching the protest sites.

He added that citizens could not be lawfully restrained from accessing other parts of the city where prohibitory orders under Section 163 were not in force. He pointed out that the restrictions were confined to the jurisdictional limits of the Parliament Street subdivision, and at the time of detention, the individuals had committed no offence.

He further submitted that authorities were detaining individuals for periods under 24 hours prior to releasing them, thereby attempting to bypass technical violations of procedure.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in the main matter, i.e., the plea filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi, submitted that the disruption of metro services and internet connectivity effectively stripped citizens of their basic ability to move and communicate. She highlighted the staggering magnitude of the state action, noting that approximately 7,000 individuals had been detained without any official figures provided by the state, alongside the establishment of 45 detention centers across Delhi.

"What is at stake is the suspension of citizens' peacefully exercised constitutional rights. That is what you are considering. The last time this court had to consider such requests, such challenges was at the time of the emergency. We come back to you almost 50 years later because the court at that point passed ADM Jabalpur. Your lordships have the opportunity not to do that. That is why we are here today", she added.

Guruswamy explained that filing petitions had been severely hindered due to the total blackout of internet services and physical barricades surrounding Bhagwan Das Road and the Supreme Court. She urged the bench not to grant further time to the authorities, arguing that allowing the state until Tuesday would enable continued disobedience of the court's prior directives regarding public transit and fundamental rights.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted, "So, so far as the habeas corpus prayer is concerned, that may perhaps not survive. The question of legality, I will be very cool, and I will be composed, because that's what a lawyer is expecting...So far as the legality of the arrest is concerned, it is for them to decide and not for the court to concern. But for which, I will have to file my reply giving the justifications."

"These are my written instructions, which would come by way of an affidavit also. There was no curtailment of any metro service on 10th.There was zero reduction in the total volume of metro operations on 10th...Trains were inducted strictly as per standard Saturday schedule with 271 trains induced into the service on 10th October. A full complement of 4,157 train trips are run on 10th October as per the schedule across the network. Now, what proportionately and as per the instructions given by the law enforcement agency, the Delhi Metro did was this.", he added.

Justice Bagchi said, "The thing is, initially you proposed to close down of 57 stations. Then, pursuant to our order, 45 stations were closed down. We would like you to indicate what was the situs of these 45 stations. So, understand, let us say your 113 stations are on a linear plane where 20 stations at one end and 20 stations at the other end are open, but in the middle the entire access is closed. We have to examine that issue, so when you give your counter or your compliance, please show on a map or something kind of pictorial representation the stations that are open and what were the stations which were closed which would be relevant for our understanding of the accessibility and the nature of regulation."

Justice Bagchi added, "There is another thing which we would like to know: are the advisories by the railway authorities?...In the meantime, the metro functioning should continue in accordance with the normal schedule, with the order passed. Because something happens, no, no, in accordance with what we will say is, in accordance with the normal schedule subject to a public order condition envisaged under clause 2 of Article 19."

It has also been informed by the Legal Head of CJP Ratna Singh that Abhijit Dipke, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka have been released by the Special Executive Magistrate Court after being detained in the flight by Delhi Police yesterday, i.e. October 10.

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.

It has also been reported that the police arrested key opposition leaders from their homes and from streets near Jantar Mantar as they tried to join peaceful protests.

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]

Justice Joymalya BagchiJustice V MohanaElection Commission of IndiaGyanesh KumarCockroach Janta PartyJantar Mantar Protest

Aastha Kaushik