The Supreme Court on Sunday directed that Metro and other trains must be kept running in Delhi and people allowed free movement, but added riders such as “reasonable restrictions” and “subject to law-and-order situation”.
It issued contempt notices to Union home secretary Govind Mohan, police commissioner Anurag Kumar and Metro chairperson D. Dhara after petitioners alleged that Saturday’s lockdown had flouted the court’s order against an “outright prohibition” on Metro and other train services.
The bench also directed that Internet services must operate “unhindered” in the capital and there should be no illegal detentions, particularly of peaceful and unarmed people gathered outside areas where assemblies have been prohibited.
“Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally until and unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2),” the bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana said at Sunday’s special sitting.
“Similarly, free movement of people in the city shall be ensured subject to law-and-order situation and/ or traffic regulations. Imposition of barricades on roads shall be reviewed forthwith to ensure free movement subject to law and order and traffic requirements.”
The expressions “unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions” and “subject to law-and-order situation and/ or traffic regulations” leave the authorities with enough elbowroom to continue imposing these curbs.
The court said it had been told a notice board had been “put up in the Court premises” saying “Section 163 BNSS (which bans assemblies) has been invoked in and around the precincts of the Supreme Court”. It sought the board’s immediate removal so that people were not afraid to enter the court.
“Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in the discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever,” the court added.
The bench was dealing with a batch of petitions and intervention applications, including a contempt plea moved by Shailendra Tripathi, said to be a CJP member, which alleged violations of Friday’s court order for a “regulated” operation of Metro and other train services.
Among the others who argued against Saturday’s clampdown were former attorney-general K.K. Venugopal and senior advocates Kapil Sibal, N. Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy, Shadan Farasat, Monika Gusain, Shoeb Alam and Sanjay Hegde. It wasn’t clear whether they were themselves the petitioners or were representing others.
During the hearing, Venugopal complained that one of his juniors, a woman advocate, had been whisked away by policewomen who did not display their names or badges. He said the junior was eventually abandoned on the road 11km away.
The senior advocates complained that the Delhi Metro did not function on Saturday, the New Delhi and Nizamuddin railway stations were closed, no traffic advisories were issued, and hundreds faced harassment and illegal detention, even from outside prohibited zones.
Guruswamy, who had filed a habeas corpus petition, defended the move on the grounds that about 7,000 people had been detained illegally.
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor-general S.V. Raju, appearing for the Centre, said the petitioners had not served the government with copies of their petitions and applications. Therefore, the law officers said, they would be unable to assist the court in the matter.
Mehta, however, orally denied that Friday’s court order had been violated. He claimed that the Delhi Metro operated normally on Saturday, except for 45 of the 303 stations having been closed to maintain law and order.
He denied any illegal arrests or detentions and argued that the habeas corpus petition had become infructuous since all those detained had been released.
“All Metro stations are open since 10pm yesterday. Trains are functioning normally and Internet connection has been restored,” Mehta told the court.
When Kirit Uppal, a senior advocate intervening in the matter, said lawyers should argue inside courts and not be seen protesting outside them, he was booed by some of the lawyers present inside the courtroom.
Justice Bagchi and several senior advocates asked the hecklers to maintain decorum.
On Saturday, a group of lawyers had stood outside the Supreme Court and publicly protested the crackdown.
The special hearing attracted a crowd of about 1,000 lawyers, litigants and others, forcing a shift of venue from the smaller Court No. 18 to Court No. 5. But this larger court, too, was packed and many had to stand outside and content themselves with the updates provided periodically by those inside.
Another thousand-odd watched via videoconferencing. Many more failed to connect, their efforts attracting the message “meeting room full, your call cannot be connected”.
The court will again hear the matter on Tuesday, by when the three officials are expected to file their replies to the contempt notice.
The trio have been exempted from personal appearance given they are high-ranking officials, and their presence would entail additional security measures, inconveniencing the court.