SUPREME COURT PUSHES BACK AGAINST DELHI’S PROTEST CRACKDOWN, ORDERS INTERNET RESTORATION AND PROTECTION FOR PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATORS
October 11, 2026
The Supreme Court on Sunday intervened in the controversy surrounding the police crackdown on the Cockroach Janta Party’s (CJP) proposed demonstration in New Delhi, directing authorities to ensure that peaceful protesters are not illegally detained, Metro services return to their normal schedule and internet connectivity across the capital is restored, subject to lawful restrictions required to maintain public order.
A bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notices to the Centre while hearing petitions alleging that authorities had violated the court’s October 9 directions concerning transport restrictions ahead of the demonstration. The judges also sought explanations over allegations of excessive police force, unlawful detentions and harassment of people attempting to reach the protest venue.
The court’s intervention followed Saturday’s extensive security operation, during which more than 7,000 people were reportedly detained at various locations across Delhi. The proposed CJP demonstration at Jantar Mantar had called for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in electoral-roll revision and the functioning of the Election Commission.
During the special hearing, senior advocates argued that the authorities had disregarded the Supreme Court’s earlier direction that there should be no complete prohibition on Metro and railway services. They alleged that railway stations had remained closed, public transport had been disrupted, traffic advisories had not been adequately issued and people had been detained beyond the areas covered by prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Responding to the allegations, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta told the bench that Metro operations had continued and that restrictions on entry and exit had affected only a limited number of stations. He said services had operated according to the scheduled timetable, with thousands of train services running across the network on October 10.
The court nevertheless directed the authorities to ensure that Metro services continued according to their normal schedule, subject to legitimate public-order requirements. It also called for the restoration of internet services in the capital and stressed that lawyers, journalists and other professionals must not be obstructed from carrying out their duties.
The bench further directed authorities to review barricades erected across Delhi and remove boards or notices announcing prohibitory orders in and around Supreme Court premises, if they had not already been taken down. The judges emphasised that restrictions must not create apprehension or prevent people from accessing the Supreme Court and other courts to seek justice.
The court said it would remain a neutral arbiter while discharging its constitutional responsibility to protect fundamental rights. It also noted that allegations of excessive force, illegal detention and the involvement of an unidentified or unbadged police officer required formal responses from the authorities rather than being dismissed without examination.
The proceedings included a contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, which named Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation chairperson D. Thara as respondents. A separate habeas corpus petition filed by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy concerning the detention of political leaders was also taken up.
The court directed the Centre and other concerned authorities to file their responses and compliance reports by Tuesday, October 13, when the matter is scheduled to be heard again.
The CJP protest was called to demand accountability from the Election Commission over allegations surrounding the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. The authorities had refused permission for the gathering, citing procedural and public-order concerns, before deploying extensive security personnel and imposing restrictions around central Delhi.
The Supreme Court’s latest intervention has brought the legality and proportionality of those restrictions under renewed judicial scrutiny. While the authorities retain the responsibility to maintain public order, the court has made clear that security arrangements must not become a pretext for unlawful detention, indiscriminate disruption of essential services or obstruction of access to justice.
The upcoming hearing will determine how the government responds to the allegations and whether the authorities complied with the court’s earlier directions. For now, the intervention places fundamental rights, public convenience and accountability for the police operation firmly at the centre of the continuing dispute.
