Supreme Court tells Centre to keep Delhi Metro, internet running amid protests

The Supreme Court on Sunday said people gathering peacefully should not be illegally detained and asked the Centre to ensure that Delhi Metro services run normally and internet services are not disrupted, subject to law-and-order conditions, amid protests organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Delhi.

In a special sitting, a bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the Centre while hearing a plea seeking contempt action over an alleged violation of the court's earlier direction that there should be no "complete prohibition" on metro and train services in Delhi because of the protest.

The protest call was given by the CJP and some student organisations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission. On Saturday, the government stopped a planned mass mobilisation at Jantar Mantar after a major security clampdown and the detention of more than 7,000 protesters, including CJP leader Abhijit Dipke, several opposition leaders and YouTuber Dhruv Rathee.

The bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that the Delhi Metro functions according to its normal schedule and that there is no disruption to internet services, subject to law-and-order conditions. It also asked him to ensure that lawyers, journalists and others are not stopped from carrying out their professional duties.

"Internet facilities shall remain undisturbed, as per law.... When we are saying internet facilities shall remain undisturbed, we are not taking away the powers under the Information Technology Act. There shall not be illegal detention, save and except by procedure established by law, particularly with regard to assemblage of people beyond the area within which it (section 163 of the BNSS) is imposed," the bench said.

The court also ordered that a board outside its premises stating that section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which bars the assembly of five or more persons, had been imposed in and around the Supreme Court be taken down. "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 authority concerned to take down this board, if not already done, so that citizens as well as lawyers can have access to justice," it said.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for RJD MP Manoj Jha, told the court that police were detaining people from trains and anyone outside the four-km radius of Jantar Mantar, where prohibitory orders are in place. He said that despite the court's October 9 order, 45 metro stations were closed for entry and exit of passengers.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy said around 45 detention centres had been opened in the city and about 7,000 people, including opposition leaders, were detained. She said GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya metro stations, along with others, were completely shut to the public and that there had been a deliberate and wilful violation of the court's order.

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, who was detained by Delhi Police during Saturday's protest, told the court that he was "brutalised" along with a large number of lawyers and said the situation in the city was highly suppressive. "It is about the citizens' right to protest. The sense I got yesterday was that we were one step away from a police state. Kindly restore the citizens' right to protest peacefully in the capital. Yesterday, that right was destroyed," Farasat said.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the court that senior advocates Dinesh Dwivedi, Uttara Babbar and Farasat were detained and that people marching peacefully were subjected to violence. He said free movement should be fully restored, all barricades removed and metro station services brought back.

Mehta told the court that entry and exit were restricted at only 45 of the 303 metro stations on October 10, which he said was 15 per cent of the network. He also said the petitions seeking release of detainees did not survive as most of those detained had already been released.

As the hearing began on Sunday, the court said it would hear all lawyers while dealing with the plea for contempt proceedings over the alleged violation of its direction. It was also hearing a habeas petition filed by Guruswamy against the detention of political leaders. The court is also dealing with Jha's plea alleging disproportionate use of force by Delhi Police during the protests against the CEC and the EC. Jha has alleged illegal detention, abduction, house arrests of unarmed protesters, student leaders, lawyers, politicians and civilians, as well as "sexual harassment of women protesters".

The contempt plea, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, named Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Chairperson D Thara as respondents. It referred to the Supreme Court's October 9 order, passed on a separate plea against the closure of 57 metro stations and cancellation of trains to Delhi because of the protest.

While hearing that matter on Friday, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Bagchi and Mohana had directed the Centre to ensure that there was no "complete prohibition" on the movement of metro and trains coming to Delhi on October 10, saying authorities could not bring everything to a halt. The court had said that while law-enforcement agencies had the right to restrict unruly movement, citizens should not be unduly harassed.

Delhi Metro had closed 45 stations from 9 pm on Friday till 6 pm on Saturday for security reasons, according to an advisory. In its October 9 order, the court had said the notifications appeared to be overreaching as they imposed a complete ban on essential public transport, and had clarified that there should be no outright prohibition on metro and other rail services, though they could be operated in a suitable and regulated manner. It had also said the decision should be widely publicised and that a traffic advisory should be issued in newspapers and on online platforms to avoid inconvenience to the public. Sunday's hearing centred on whether those directions were followed and on ensuring that movement, access and communication services remain available within the law.