CJP protests: SC directs review of Delhi barricades, seeks normal metro and rail services

The Supreme Court on Sunday directed authorities to review barricades across Delhi, restore normal metro and railway services and ensure the free movement of people, while seeking a response to allegations of excessive police force and illegal detentions during protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

A special sitting of a bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana came amid a series of petitions challenging the police action during Saturday’s demonstrations by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other groups. The court said allegations of violations of statutory duties, including excessive force, illegal detention and the involvement of an allegedly unbadged police officer, required a response from the authorities. The matters have been listed for further hearing on Tuesday.

The court’s intervention followed complaints that security measures imposed ahead of the protests had disrupted public transport, restricted access to parts of the capital and prevented demonstrators from reaching the designated protest site. Petitioners also alleged that lawyers, political leaders, journalists and ordinary citizens had been detained or assaulted. These allegations are yet to be adjudicated.

The bench directed that metro and railway services function normally unless restrictions are necessary to address a public-order situation. It also ordered authorities to permit the free movement of people, subject to traffic regulations, and review the need for barricades immediately, keeping law-and-order requirements and traffic conditions in mind.

The court further said internet services should remain undisturbed in accordance with the law, while clarifying that its directions did not take away the authorities’ statutory powers. It stressed that people could not be detained except through the procedure established by law, particularly those participating in peaceful, unarmed assemblies outside areas where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in force.

The bench also directed authorities to remove notices or boards announcing the imposition of Section 163 restrictions in and around the Supreme Court premises, if these had not already been removed. The direction was intended to ensure that lawyers and litigants did not face apprehension about access to the Supreme Court and other courts.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that citizens had a constitutional right to peaceful protest but were being prevented from reaching the designated site. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded that permission had not been sought for the protest. Justice Bagchi observed that the right to protest was not in dispute, but its exercise had to comply with the law.

The bench sought to examine the balance between the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution and the state’s power to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order under Article 19(3). The court’s observations indicated that the existence of security concerns did not, by itself, justify restrictions extending beyond what was legally necessary.

The petitions before the court raised different aspects of the police action. Senior advocate and Trinamool Congress MP Menaka Guruswamy challenged the preventive detention of opposition leaders, including former chief ministers, arguing that such measures could suppress the fundamental right to peaceful protest. Another petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, sought contempt proceedings against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation chairperson D Thara over alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s October 9 directions on public transport.

The earlier order had asked authorities to avoid a complete prohibition on metro and railway services and instead consider regulated operations in view of security concerns. Despite that intervention, metro restrictions and train cancellations remained a central point of contention. The DMRC had reduced the number of metro stations scheduled to remain closed from 57 to 45, according to earlier reports.

The protests were organised to demand Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation amid controversy over the revision of electoral rolls. Authorities had deployed security personnel, erected barricades and imposed restrictions ahead of the planned gathering. More than 2,000 protesters were reportedly detained on Saturday, while metro services and movement in parts of the capital were disrupted.

The government and other authorities are expected to respond when the matter returns to court on Tuesday, when the bench will consider the allegations and the steps taken to comply with its directions.