Delhi crackdown: SC directs authorities to prevent illegal detention, restore internet and Metro services

The Supreme Court of India held an urgent Sunday hearing following widespread security clampdowns during political demonstrations in New Delhi, issuing notices to top officials and directing that peaceful citizens must not be illegally detained. A two-judge bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana ordered the immediate normalisation of Delhi Metro services and the restoration of internet connectivity across the capital.

The special sitting was convened after petitions accused authorities of blatantly violating an October 9 court directive that prohibited full transport shutdowns ahead of demonstrations organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). Protesters had gathered at Jantar Mantar to oppose Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged electoral roll irregularities. In response, police enforced heavy restrictions, shutting 45 metro stations, disrupting internet access, and detaining over 7,000 individuals, including political leaders, journalists, YouTubers, and lawyers.

Notice issued over metro station shutdowns

The court issued formal notices to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Chairperson D. Thara on a contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. Counsel argued that closing 45 key stations caused severe public harassment and halted movement across the city. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, maintained that overall train operations ran at full capacity, but acknowledged that entry and exit were restricted at 15 per cent of the metro network. He confirmed to the bench that all metro stations have since reopened and internet services have been restored.

Addressing the government's position, Justice Bagchi noted that closing central stations could disrupt transit accessibility across the wider network. "When you give your counter or your compliance, please show on a map which stations were open and what were the stations which were closed, which would be relevant for our understanding of the accessibility," Justice Bagchi stated.

Lawyers allege state overreach and violence

During arguments, senior advocates described heavy-handed police actions against peaceful marchers and legal professionals. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, who was himself detained, warned that the crackdown brought the capital dangerously close to arbitrary state control. "The sense I got was that yesterday we were one step away from a police state," Farasat submitted, asking the court to "restore the right of the citizens of this country to peacefully protest".

Petitioners also challenged mass preventive detentions, pointing out that over 45 makeshift detention centres had been set up across Delhi. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that fundamental rights under Article 19 cannot be suspended without a formal Emergency. In response, the Solicitor General stated that habeas corpus prayers were moot because most detainees had been picked up in the afternoon and released by evening.

Binding directives issued to protect public movement

Issuing a series of binding directions, the bench ruled that peaceful assembly outside active Section 163 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) zones must be allowed in accordance with law. The judges emphasised that internet facilities must remain undisturbed, though standard statutory powers under the Information Technology Act remain intact. Traffic barricades throughout the city must be reviewed immediately to avoid unnecessary public disruption.

The court further directed authorities to immediately remove a notice board placed outside the Supreme Court gate that declared a restriction on public assembly. Justice Bagchi stated that the board must be removed "so that citizens as well as lawyers can have access to justice". Reminding both sides of their duties, Justice Mohana urged protesters to remain peaceful, while Justice Bagchi affirmed: "We are duty-bound under Article 32 to protect and enforce fundamental rights".