SC bars illegal detention; orders normal Metro, rail, net services

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Sunday directed authorities not to illegally detain peaceful protesters and ordered normal functioning of Metro and railway services, free movement of people and uninterrupted internet facilities, subject to lawful restrictions in the interest of public order.

Also read: 'Cockroaches stay back, next call on its way': CJP teases another round of protests



A special sitting of a bench of justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took up a plea alleging that Delhi Police and other authorities had violated the court's October 9 directions by restricting public transport and detaining thousands of people, including Opposition leaders, lawyers and students, during Saturday's protests against chief election commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The bench directed that Metro and rail facilities function normally unless restrictions were necessary to address disturbances to public order under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It ordered that free and smooth movement of people be permitted in accordance with law and that authorities review barricades forthwith, keeping law and order and traffic conditions in mind.

Also read: Delhi Police refutes CJP's claim, releases video of informing Abhijeet Dipke about his grandmother's death


"There shall not be illegal detention, save and except by procedure established by law," the bench said, particularly concerning gatherings outside areas covered by prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Peaceful assemblies outside such areas must be permitted in accordance with law, it added.

The court also directed authorities to remove, if not already done, a notice board announcing the imposition of Section 163 BNSS in and around SC premises, saying this was necessary to ensure that citizens and lawyers could access justice. "We are duty-bound under Article 32 to protect and enforce fundamental rights," justice Bagchi observed.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioners, submitted that the right to protest could not be taken away by statutory law and that public order was the constitutionally recognised ground for restricting the exercise of fundamental rights under Article 19. A citizen, he argued, was not required to seek permission to protest. The bench, however, observed that the process of conducting a protest had to be in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Former attorney general KK Venugopal said that a former junior of his had been picked up in a police van, taken 9 km away and dropped 11 km away. She was unable to access the court, he submitted, adding that the police personnel involved were not wearing identification badges and that she had not been informed of the reasons for her detention.

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat, who said he was detained and brutalised during Saturday's protests, termed the situation "suppressive". He said people were being picked up and thrown into vehicles even when they were standing peacefully on the streets. He said he had been thrown into a moving bus and argued that the issue concerned citizens' right to protest, rather than any special privilege for lawyers.

The court was told that lawyers, including senior advocates had been detained away from the designated protest area. Petitioners alleged that peaceful protesters, students and others were assaulted, while thousands were detained across Delhi and the National Capital Region.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that most detainees had been released within hours and that the habeas corpus prayer might consequently no longer survive. He said all 4,157 scheduled Metro train trips had operated on October 10, although entry and exit were restricted at 45 of the network's 303 stations.

Justice Bagchi asked the Centre to provide a map identifying the stations that remained open and those that were closed so that the court could assess the restrictions' effect on accessibility.

Mehta assured that lawyers, journalists and others would not be obstructed from discharging their professional duties.

The court issued notice to authorities on a contempt petition seeking an explanation for the alleged violation of its earlier order and directed them to file affidavits explaining the Metro closures and submit a compliance report. The matter was posted for further hearing on Tuesday.

Justice Mohana urged protesters to undertake that demonstrations would remain peaceful and would not instigate others.