SUPREME COURT REOPENS DELHI’S PUBLIC SPACES BUT LEAVES SECURITY LEASH IN PLACE AS TOP OFFICIALS FACE CONTEMPT NOTICES

October 12, 2026

The Supreme Court on Sunday directed authorities to maintain normal Metro and railway services, restore unhindered internet connectivity and ensure free movement across New Delhi, while issuing contempt notices to three senior officials over allegations that sweeping restrictions imposed ahead of the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) protest violated the court’s earlier directions.

A bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notices to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation chairperson D. Thara, asking them to explain their actions following the security lockdown on Saturday, October 10. The officials have been directed to submit their replies and a compliance report by Tuesday, October 13. Their personal appearance before the court has been dispensed with for the time being.

The court’s intervention followed petitions alleging that authorities had disregarded its October 9 order, which had expressly opposed a complete prohibition on Metro and railway services ahead of the proposed demonstration demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation.

The bench directed that Metro trains and railway facilities should function normally unless reasonable restrictions were necessary under the law. It also ordered that people should be allowed to move freely across Delhi, subject to legitimate law-and-order requirements and traffic regulations. Authorities were instructed to review road barricades immediately to ensure that security arrangements did not unnecessarily obstruct public movement.

The court further directed that internet services should operate without hindrance in the capital and that peaceful, unarmed people must not be illegally detained, particularly when they were outside areas where assemblies had been prohibited. It also made clear that lawyers, journalists and other professionals must not be obstructed while performing their duties.

The judges took particular exception to a notice board reportedly displayed within the Supreme Court premises announcing the enforcement of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bench directed its immediate removal so that people would not be deterred from entering the court complex to seek justice.

The contempt proceedings arose from allegations that the administration had imposed restrictions far beyond what was necessary to manage the proposed demonstration. Senior advocates appearing before the bench complained that Metro services had been substantially disrupted, New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations had been closed, traffic advisories had not been adequately issued and hundreds of people had faced harassment or unlawful detention.

Former Attorney-General K. K. Venugopal told the court that a junior woman advocate had allegedly been taken away by policewomen who were not displaying their names or badges and was subsequently abandoned approximately 11 kilometres away. Other advocates described what they said was a sweeping security operation that affected people who were not participating in the protest and were outside prohibited areas.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who had filed a habeas corpus petition, alleged that approximately 7,000 people had been illegally detained during the crackdown. The petitioners argued that the restrictions and detentions violated both the Supreme Court’s earlier order and fundamental rights.

Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor-General S. V. Raju, appearing for the Centre, disputed the allegations. Mehta argued that the government had not been served copies of some petitions and applications, limiting its ability to respond fully. He also denied that the court’s earlier directions had been violated, maintaining that the Metro had operated normally apart from the closure of 45 of its 303 stations for security reasons.

Mehta told the court that all Metro stations had reopened by 10 pm on Saturday, train services were functioning normally and internet connectivity had been restored. He also denied that there had been illegal arrests or detentions, arguing that the habeas corpus petition had become infructuous because those detained had been released.

The case attracted an unusually large gathering of lawyers, litigants and members of the public. Approximately 1,000 people assembled inside the court complex, forcing the hearing to be moved from a smaller courtroom to a larger one, which also became crowded. Hundreds more followed the proceedings through video conferencing.

The CJP had planned its demonstration to demand Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Delhi Police refused permission for the proposed gathering, citing procedural and public-order concerns, and introduced extensive security measures across the capital. The subsequent restrictions on transport and movement triggered legal challenges and a broader confrontation over the limits of preventive policing.

Although the Supreme Court has now directed that essential services and public movement be restored, the qualifications attached to its order leave authorities room to impose reasonable restrictions when justified by genuine security concerns. The court has not yet determined whether the officials named in the contempt notices are guilty of disobeying its earlier directions.

The matter will return to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, when the three officials are expected to submit their explanations. The proceedings will test whether the restrictions imposed during the CJP protest were a lawful response to public-order concerns or an excessive exercise of executive power that disregarded the court’s instructions.