Supreme Court bars complete Delhi Metro shutdown ahead of CJP protest, asks Centre to consider alternative venue

The Supreme Court, on Friday, directed authorities to ensure there is no complete shutdown of Delhi Metro services on October 10, cautioning that restrictions imposed to prevent protests cannot bring an entire city to a standstill or leave commuters without public transport.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana expressed concern over the proposed closure of 57 metro stations and the cancellation of long-distance trains ahead of protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other youth groups demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

The court recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance that the Centre would ask the authorities to reconsider the restrictions and allow metro and railway services to operate in a regulated manner. It also directed authorities to issue a traffic advisory and ensure that revised transport arrangements receive wide publicity.

“Everybody does not have a car. Everybody does not have access to private transport. People depend on public transport. This cannot be done,” Chief Justice Kant said during the hearing.

The bench emphasised that while law enforcement agencies were entitled to take preventive measures to maintain law and order, such restrictions must be proportionate to the situation and should not cause unnecessary hardship to ordinary citizens.

The court also asked the Union government to consider identifying an alternative venue in Delhi for peaceful and lawful protests, equipped with the necessary facilities and amenities.

The petitions before the court challenged communications issued by the Delhi Police and the Railways concerning the closure of metro stations and cancellation of trains scheduled to arrive in the national capital during specified hours on October 10.

Mehta told the bench that the metro was not being shut down entirely and that the proposed measures primarily involved reducing train frequency. However, the judges pointed out that the communication also provided for closing entry and exit points at designated stations from 9 am until the situation normalised.

“On the one hand, you say that the frequency of metro trains may be reduced. Then you say that from 9 am, the stations will be closed until further notice. How?” Justice Bagchi asked.

The Chief Justice highlighted the impact such restrictions could have on students, employees, senior citizens and daily wage workers commuting from Gurugram, Greater Noida and different parts of Delhi.

The bench said authorities could use CCTV cameras and other security arrangements to monitor potential trouble instead of imposing blanket restrictions on public transport.

It also stressed that road closures and barricading needed to be reviewed to ensure the free flow of traffic wherever possible.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal raised concerns over the cancellation of long-distance trains, pointing out that passengers travelling from distant states could be stranded if their trains were cancelled because of anticipated congestion around New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations.

Senior advocate N. Hariharan also questioned the extensive barricading, saying that movement between different parts of the capital had become difficult.

The Centre, however, defended the restrictions, citing previous protests that allegedly continued beyond the permitted period and involved attempts to march towards Parliament. Mehta told the court that an earlier protest, for which permission had been granted for one day, continued for 17 days.

He also alleged that more than 200 police personnel were injured during an earlier confrontation involving protesters. The government maintained that authorities had a responsibility to protect both demonstrators and the wider public.

The bench did not comment on allegations raised by lawyers regarding police visits to mosques to discourage people from joining the protests, saying the authorities would have to be heard before any conclusion could be drawn.

Reiterating the principle of proportionality, the Chief Justice said preventive measures should be limited to what was necessary to address the perceived threat.

“Take measures only to the extent necessary to prevent them. But that does not mean you should use a hammer to kill a fly,” he said.

The court clarified that maintaining law and order was not merely about protecting government property but also about safeguarding citizens, including children, women, senior citizens and patients who depend on public transport.

The Centre has been asked to reconsider the restrictions and take an appropriate decision on designating an alternative protest venue.