The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 15, 2026) directed the Union government to “enlighten” it about the prohibitory orders slapped on Delhi that led to mass detentions of people, particularly journalists, lawyers and protesters, during the October 10 demonstrations to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
“We want to be enlightened about the prohibitory orders issued under S. 163 BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023),” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, part of the two-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, said.
Petitioners have complained that there cannot be Section 163 orders in contiguous areas, and these orders have not been not made public.
The prohibitive orders were a “ghost” as of now, Justice Bagchi said, and the court would bring them under constitutional scrutiny after the government’s response in an affidavit.
Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas, who was present in the crowded court room, intervened to narrate how he had been “pounced upon” by security personnel while addressing the media on the streets. He had written to the Chief Justice about it, he said. The CJI asked him to file a petition.
The court passed a general order to the authorities to preserve “all CCTV footage” concerning the protest, including of detention centres where people had been kept for hours.
The Bench directed the Centre to explain the denotification of Jantar Mantar on a petition which said the move was meant to distance dissent away from the power centres in the national capital. But the court refused to pass any interim orders on the issue without first hearing from the authorities, who said the denotification was not based on a Supreme Court order of October 9, but after getting expert opinion.
Senior advocate Mukta Gupta, appearing for Swaty Singh, the petitioner in the Jantar Mantar petition, said protesters must be within earshot of the people in power, and Jantar Mantar was proximate to institutions of authority.
Justice Bagchi responded on the distance factor by remarking that “we have to keep in mind the advances in technology”, to which senior advocate N. Hariharan submitted that in that case “we can address the court from Kerala, why come here [to the court room]”.
The court issued notice to Mr. Kumar and the two Election Commissioners, Sukhbir Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, to respond to a petition filed by Opposition bloc leaders led by Rahul Gandhi, for a full disclosure of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise records. The petition, represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi and advocate Prasanna S., further sought an independent probe into allegations that Mr. Kumar had acted in a unilateral and arbitrary manner during the massive exercise that has so far left about 13 crore people without the power to vote.
The court also issued notice to the Centre, the Delhi Police Commissioner, and Mr. Gandhi on a petition filed by advocate Digant Mishra and others. They have sought suo motu criminal contempt action against Mr. Gandhi and other Opposition leaders for leading a “political procession” into the Supreme Court precincts on October 12. Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the petition, said the attempt was to browbeat the judiciary.
“Nobody can browbeat the judiciary,” Chief Justice Kant said. The court ordered the CCTV footage of the Supreme Court premises to be preserved.
When senior advocate A.N.S. Nadkarni, representing petitioner Bhanu Sanoriya, sought a direction that all who hold protests must take personal responsibility for the ills that fall on others, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan countered that such a liability must work both ways. “The police also must be accountable,” he said.
The Delhi Union of Journalists, represented by senior advocate C.U. Singh, alleged that the devices of journalists professionally covering the protests were seized by security personnel. Mr. Mehta denied the submission. The court directed the government to “make good the statement in an affidavit”.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, for the Network of Women in Media, India, said women journalists were detained and these incidents must be investigated by an independent committee.
“Women journalists have a right to work. They are particularly vulnerable to abuse, particularly by male policemen. Form a committee headed by a woman chairperson, maybe a woman Supreme Court judge, in accordance with the Vishakha guidelines on sexual harassment at workplace,” Ms. Jaising submitted.
The court prima facie agreed with her suggestion, but Mr. Mehta said the authorities must be given time to respond to the petition.
“There are people who say they are freelance journalists, they record and make reels. We do not know who is a reel-maker or a freelance journalist, but no woman must be harassed. There are women police officers who were assaulted. Please do not pass any blanket orders,” the law officer said.
Some of the videos of harassment may have been AI-generated, Mr. Mehta said.
The court proceeded to protect from any coercive action a woman journalist who was booked by the Delhi Police following allegations of public humiliation and casteist slurs against police officers.
At this point, Justice Bagchi said the court would examine if freedom of expression would make every person a journalist.
He observed that laws, including the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 categorised journalists. There were both accredited and unaccredited journalists, those employed in recognised media organisations, etc.
The emotionally tumultuous hearing saw lawyers crowd in to represent over 40 petitions. Issuing notice in all the petitions, Chief Justice Kant, more often than not, requested the lawyers to maintain an orderly hearing in a courtroom, watched widely across the globe. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said petitioners were creating a “ruckus” in the court.
Lawyers on either side exchanged barbs. When Mr. Bhatia submitted that Mr. Gandhi had pushed a pregnant woman journalist on October 12, and accused the petitioners of “selective outrage”, Ms. Jaising said the senior advocate was bringing politics into the courtroom.
Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan said Mr. Bhatia’s plea that women police officers were “manhandled” in the protest was “only a counter-blast”. While a lawyer asked why no one was fighting for hawkers whose livelihoods had been affected by the protest, another counsel said the Delhi Police Commissioner must apologise for the alleged police excesses on the protestors.