The Supreme Court gave the Centre until October 15 to answer petitions on Delhi protest restrictions and transport curbs. It also widened scrutiny to police action, journalist assault claims and the legal immunity of election commissioners.
Image used for representational purposes only
Newdelhi,Oct 13, 2026 16:54 IST
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the Centre until October 15 to file its response in a batch of petitions linked to the closure of metro stations and disruption of train services in Delhi ahead of the October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The hearing, which was expected to take up a range of pleas arising from the restrictions and police action around the protests, was put off till Thursday after Justice V Mohana was unwell. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, also issued notice on a fresh plea by the Association for Democratic Reforms and sought the presence of a senior Delhi Police officer over allegations by women journalists that they were assaulted while covering the protests.
At the start of the hearing, the CJI told lawyers that Justice Mohana was unwell but had still come to court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked for the matter to be adjourned, saying health issues should not be ignored. Senior advocates, including Gopal Sankaranarayanan, agreed to the deferment.
Mehta told the bench that the time given to the Centre to respond to the contempt plea, which alleged disobedience of the top court's direction not to completely halt metro and train services ahead of the October 10 protest, was until Tuesday. He said, "The affidavit is ready. I would like to add something to make it more comprehensive." The bench extended the time for filing the affidavit and directed that it be supplied to counsel for the petitioners.
Besides Mehta and Sankaranarayanan, senior advocates Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, CU Singh, Nitya Ramakrishnan and Indira Jaising appeared in the proceedings.
The bench also issued notice on a fresh petition by the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act. The provision gives immunity to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners for certain acts done in the discharge of their official duties, and ADR has challenged its constitutional validity.
The court also asked for a senior Delhi Police officer to be present to answer allegations by women journalists that they were assaulted while reporting on the protests.
Earlier, in a special sitting on Sunday, the bench directed that no person be detained except in accordance with the procedure established by law, especially in connection with peaceful and unarmed assemblies outside areas covered by prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
The authorities were also told to remove, if not already removed, the board announcing Section 163 restrictions around the Supreme Court so that there was no apprehension about access to courts, including entry to and exit from court premises.
The bench had further said metro and rail services should function normally unless restrictions were required to deal with disturbances to public order, in line with Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It also said free movement within the city should be allowed subject to traffic regulations, and that lawyers, journalists and other professionals should not be obstructed from carrying out their work.
The proceedings arise from petitions challenging restrictions imposed by the Centre and Delhi authorities ahead of protests against the CEC and the Election Commission's SIR exercise. On October 9, a bench led by the CJI had directed the Centre not to completely suspend train and metro services in Delhi in anticipation of a protest planned for October 10 by the Cockroach Janta Party and others.
Taking note of police communications ordering the closure of 57 metro stations and the cancellation of trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations, the bench had said the measures appeared to go too far by effectively imposing a complete ban on essential public transport. It said metro services could be regulated but should not face an outright ban, keeping in view the principle of proportionality.
Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi later filed a contempt petition alleging that the authorities had closed metro stations and restricted train services despite the court's directions. He sought action against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and DMRC Chairperson D Thara.
A petition filed by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy challenged the alleged detention of several political leaders, including former chief ministers Arvind Kejriwal, Mamata Banerjee, Pinarayi Vijayan and Manik Sarkar. It alleged that some of them were picked up from their homes and taken to undisclosed locations before they could reach the protest site.
RJD Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha also moved the court, alleging disproportionate use of force, illegal detention and house arrest of protesters, students, lawyers and political leaders, along with sexual harassment of women protesters.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association has sought an independent, impartial and time-bound inquiry into the alleged illegal detention and manhandling of lawyers by Delhi Police during the October 10 protest march. The Supreme Court Bar Association has also moved the court over the alleged manhandling and detention of lawyers near the Supreme Court.
With the hearing now set for Thursday, the Supreme Court is dealing with petitions covering transport restrictions, alleged detentions, police action against protesters and journalists, and a fresh challenge to legal immunity granted to election commissioners.
- Ends