Free Movement of Metro, Public In Delhi: Supreme Court Directs

The Supreme Court on Sunday reportedly said it would pass an interim order directing the restoration of normal Metro services, free movement of the public and internet connectivity in Delhi following restrictions imposed during Saturday’s protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The court also said lawyers should not be obstructed from discharging their professional duties.

A special bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard petitions challenging the closure of Metro stations, cancellation of trains and preventive detention of political leaders and protesters during the demonstrations, as per a Live Law report.

The court said Metro services should function normally unless a law-and-order situation arises. It also indicated that public movement and internet services should be restored, while lawyers should be allowed to carry out their professional work without obstruction.

Court Flags Restrictions on Movement, Metro Services

The proceedings followed a contempt petition concerning the closure of Metro stations and cancellation of trains during Saturday’s protests. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the bench that people were being picked up from trains and locations beyond a four-kilometre radius of the protest site.

Sibal also raised concerns over the suspension of internet services and the closure of 45 Metro stations, alleging that the restrictions continued despite court orders. He referred to the Anuradha Bhasin case in connection with the internet suspension and sought interim relief.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan urged the court to direct the immediate removal of barricades and restoration of free movement.

“As of today, without waiting for notices, we are requesting that free movement be completely restored. All barricades be removed. Metros be restored,” he told the bench.

He also questioned changes to train services and raised concerns over police personnel operating without identification badges, calling for accountability.

Lawyers Describe Situation as ‘One Step Away From a Police State’

Senior advocate Farasat, representing the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Records Association (SCAORA), told the court that the issue extended beyond the treatment of lawyers to citizens’ right to protest peacefully.

Farasat said he had also faced police action during Saturday’s demonstrations. He alleged that he was put into a moving bus after being picked up and described the situation in Delhi as “remarkably suppressive”.

“The sense I got — yesterday, we were one step away from a police state,” he told the bench, urging the court to restore citizens’ right to peaceful protest.

Advocate Dehadrai, appearing for police officers, submitted that police personnel had also been subjected to brutality.

Justice Bagchi responded that police officers did not have an individual right to maintain law and order independently of the state, stressing that the right to life and liberty was equally important.

Guruswamy Raises Concerns Over Mass Detentions

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy told the court that journalists and others had been taken to multiple holding centres across Delhi. She argued that the restrictions on movement, Metro services and internet connectivity had affected citizens’ ability to exercise their fundamental rights.

Guruswamy said around 7,000 people were reportedly detained, while the state had not provided official figures. She also referred to reports of 45 detention centres being established across the capital and alleged that Opposition MPs had been barricaded inside their homes.

She argued that the matter went beyond contempt of court, saying restrictions on public transport and internet access had affected people’s ability to move and communicate.

“By disrupting Metro, you take away my ability to move. Internet disconnected,” she told the bench.

Guruswamy also referred to the Emergency and the Supreme Court’s judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case, arguing that the court was facing a serious challenge involving citizens’ fundamental rights.

Court Seeks Compliance Report by Tuesday

Justice Bagchi said the court had taken note of the allegations in the contempt petition and referred to an earlier order requiring a compliance report by Tuesday.

The bench proposed asking the alleged contemnors to file responses to the petition and submit a compliance report by the deadline. It also said all intervention applications would be listed and that a composite order would be passed on the matters before it.

The Solicitor General said he had not been served with the petition, while the petitioners’ side maintained that his office had been served. Sibal sought an opportunity to address interim relief after the government’s submissions.

The court also heard a habeas corpus petition filed by Guruswamy concerning the detention of political leaders during Saturday’s protests.

Protests Over Electoral Roll Revision

The petitions stem from Saturday’s demonstrations against alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demands for accountability from the Election Commission.

Police detained protesters at several locations across Delhi, while restrictions were imposed around key areas. The contempt petition concerns the closure of Metro stations and cancellation of trains, while the habeas corpus plea relates to the detention of political leaders.

The Supreme Court’s proposed interim directions seek to restore normal public movement and services while addressing concerns raised over the police action. Further details of the written order and its implementation were awaited.