The Supreme Court on Friday heard a plea raising concerns over proposed restrictions on Delhi Metro services, reported train cancellations and other preventive measures ahead of an October 10 protest demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Bench questioned why the organisers had not challenged the Delhi Police’s refusal to grant permission for the demonstration, observing that a protest conducted without the requisite permission would not be in accordance with law.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard submissions by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, along with advocate Prashant Bhushan, who flagged the potential impact of the restrictions on commuters and residents of the national capital.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for CPI(M) leader M.A. Baby, submitted that trains arriving in Delhi, including those bound for Hazrat Nizamuddin railway station, had reportedly been cancelled and that hotels had allegedly been asked not to accept fresh bookings. Questioning the scale of the preventive measures, he argued that a proposed demonstration could not justify restrictions that substantially impede the movement of ordinary citizens.
“What is happening to my country?” Sibal asked during the hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta responded, “It is our country,” prompting Sibal to clarify that he was referring to the country as belonging to everyone.
The Bench, however, questioned why the organisers had not directly challenged the police decision denying permission for the protest. Justice Bagchi observed that a gathering held without the requisite authorisation would be unlawful and indicated that the Court would have to examine the denial of permission alongside the restrictions imposed by the authorities.
Sankaranarayanan, appearing for residents likely to be affected by the measures, argued that the restrictions had to satisfy the test of proportionality. He submitted that preventive action intended to avert a possible law-and-order situation should not impose a disproportionate burden on the wider public.
Singhvi described the reported measures as unprecedented in their scale, referring to the alleged deployment of 221 companies of Central Armed Police Forces, preparations for detention centres, restrictions affecting transport and hotel bookings, and advisories concerning participation in the protest.
Advocate Vrinda Grover informed the Court that the Delhi Police had declined permission to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) to hold the demonstration at Jantar Mantar. She also referred to a separate plea filed by the Indian Youth Congress before the Delhi High Court seeking permission to protest, which had been adjourned to Monday. Grover argued that extensive barricading could make access to Jantar Mantar difficult despite its status as a designated venue for demonstrations.
The Bench indicated that the organisers should approach the Court with a challenge to the denial of permission and provide further particulars concerning the proposed gathering. The possibility of seeking urgent consideration by the Delhi High Court was also discussed, given the proximity of the protest date.
The proceedings follow a communication issued by the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Transport Range, on October 8, asking the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to consider closing the entry and exit gates of 57 Metro stations from 9 pm on October 9. The proposed restrictions could continue on October 10 until the situation normalises. The police communication also sought consideration of reduced train frequency at the identified stations, citing concerns over possible crowd movement towards sensitive locations.
The stations identified in the list circulated ahead of the protest include Janpath, Patel Chowk, Central Secretariat, Lok Kalyan Marg, Rajiv Chowk, New Delhi, Seva Teerth (Udyog Bhawan), Mandi House, Bara Khamba Road, ITO, Delhi Gate, Khan Market, R.K. Ashram Marg, Jhandewalan, Supreme Court, Indraprastha and Shivaji Stadium.
The list also includes INA, covering both Metro lines, Hauz Khas, Jor Bagh, Arjangarh, Sarai Kale Khan-Nizamuddin, Lajpat Nagar, Jangpura, Ashram, Kalindi Kunj, Jasola, Jamia Millia Islamia, Okhla Vihar, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Karol Bagh and Rajendra Place.
Other stations identified are Vishwavidyalaya, Vidhan Sabha, Civil Lines, Kashmere Gate, Inderlok, G.T.B. Nagar, Kanhaiya Nagar, Netaji Subhash Place, Adarsh Nagar, Jahangir Puri, Haiderpur Badli Mor, Majlis Park, Shalimar Bagh, Seelampur, Maujpur, Jafrabad, Welcome, Yamuna Vihar, Khazuri Khas, Shahdara, Rithala, Rohini East and Rohini West.
The police communication requested the Metro authorities to issue necessary directions to their officials and staff regarding the proposed measures. However, the reported closures had not been formally confirmed by the DMRC at the time of reporting. The proposed restrictions must therefore be distinguished from any closures subsequently confirmed by the Metro operator.
The CJP has called for a demonstration at Jantar Mantar on October 10, demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The mobilisation is also linked to opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Delhi Police has cited the short notice, concerns arising from an earlier protest, and potential law-and-order and traffic-management challenges in refusing permission for the gathering. Authorities have also referred to prohibitory restrictions imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in parts of New Delhi.
The proceedings bring into focus the balance between the right to peaceful assembly, the State’s obligation to maintain public order and the proportionality of preventive measures that may affect commuters and other residents who are not participating in the proposed demonstration. The Bench had not passed a final order on the merits of the challenge at the time of reporting.
The post Supreme Court hears plea against Delhi Metro curbs, train cancellations ahead of protest seeking CEC Gyanesh Kumar’s removal appeared first on India Legal.