Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notice to Home Secretary and Delhi Police Chief Over Metro and Internet Curbs
_1972159495.jpg)
In a significant Sunday judicial intervention, a special bench of the Supreme Court affirmed that while citizens possess an undisputed fundamental right to peaceful protest, such expressions cannot bypass the statutory ambit of the Police Act or operate beyond the procedure established by law. Hearing a contempt plea concerning sweeping transit and digital shutdowns enforced across the national capital during protests organized by the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), the bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana ruled that a prima facie case of contempt was established regarding non-compliance with earlier court directions. The apex court issued immediate directives mandating regular Delhi Metro schedules, unrestricted internet connectivity, and an immediate cessation of unlawful detentions outside restricted zones.
Special Sunday Hearing: Contempt Notices Issued to Top Union and Police Bureaucrats
The special bench convened to evaluate non-compliance with judicial orders safeguarding urban mobility during demonstrations:
Contempt Notices Dispatched: The court issued formal notices to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and the Managing Director of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), granting them until October 13, 2026, to submit compliance counter-affidavits while exempting personal appearance for now.
Contempt Action Initiated: The proceedings originated from a contempt petition moved by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, highlighting administrative violations of the three-judge bench order—presided over earlier by CJI Surya Kant, Justice Bagchi, and Justice Mohana—which strictly barred total stoppages of metro networks and regional railway routes.
Proportional Policing Mandated: Reiterating constitutional bounds, the bench emphasized that while law enforcement maintains the prerogative to enforce orderly traffic and perimeter security, arbitrary actions that bring life to a standstill cannot be justified.
Removing BNSS Section 163 Curbs: Safeguarding Judicial Access and Connectivity
The bench scrutinized the territorial overreach of administrative prohibitory orders across the National Capital Region:
Removal of Signboards Near Apex Court: Upon being informed of public signage invoking Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) adjacent to the Supreme Court complex, the bench ordered its immediate removal to prevent obstructing litigants, advocates, and citizens from accessing justice.
Territorial Proportionality Enforced: The bench clarified that prohibitory orders cannot be stretched across unrelated NCR territories like Gurugram, ruling that preventive restrictions must stay confined to designated hotspots rather than peripheral commuter corridors.
Uninterrupted Professional Duties: Directing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure unhindered passage for media professionals and lawyers, the court stated that internet services must remain fully operational, clarifying this directive does not abrogate standard statutory powers under the Information Technology Act.
Legal Heavyweights Argue: Mass Detentions, Metro Lockdowns, and SG's Defense
The courtroom witnessed sharp exchanges between senior advocates and the central government over civil liberties:
Submissions on 45 Closed Metro Stations: Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing RJD MP Manoj Jha, submitted that police boarded incoming passenger trains to detain citizens and blocked entry at 45 stations, far beyond the four-kilometer radius of Jantar Mantar.
Allegations of Makeshift Detention Centers: Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy argued that nearly 7,000 individuals, including opposition leaders, were detained across 45 makeshift facilities, while advocate Shadan Farasat detailed coercive police detentions targeting members of the bar.
Solicitor General's Defense: SG Tushar Mehta contested the claims, maintaining that curbs affected only 15 percent of the total 303 metro stations, that digital networks remained operational, and that most detained individuals had already been released, rendering parallel habeas corpus petitions infructuous.
_525156185_351x234.jpg)
_1460916672_351x234.jpg)
_1731525212_351x234.jpg)
_1233230705_351x234.jpg)
_1871533198_351x234.jpg)