‘SOP concept a mirage’: SC seeks Centre’s reply on metro station closures during CJP protest

The lawyer argued that while the police could regulate a protest on law-and-order grounds, they could not direct the closure of a public utility.

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Centre’s response to a plea raising important constitutional questions over the closure of 17 Delhi Metro stations during the July protests led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP), including whether a public utility can be shut without a specific statutory power or formal order.

Passengers face inconvenience and travel disruptions after the closure of New Delhi Metro Station due to heightened security arrangements amid the CJP protest on July 24. (RAJ K RAJ /HT PHOTO)

A bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, issued notice on the plea, which argued that the shutdown violated the constitutional rights of the public at large and failed the tests of proportionality and least restrictive means.

The petition contended that there was no provision under the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act authorising the closure of Metro stations in such circumstances, and that the decision was communicated to the public through posts on “X” rather than a formal order.

“It concerns the constitutional rights of the public at large and the constitutional standards governing the shutting down of a public utility,” the counsel for the petitioner submitted, stressing that the challenge was not about the rights of the protesters but the rights of ordinary commuters affected by the shutdown.

The lawyer argued that while the police could regulate a protest on law-and-order grounds, they could not direct the closure of a public utility without statutory authority.

“The police can regulate a protest, but they cannot issue orders directing a public utility to be shut down,” said the counsel, adding that there was a strong need for a standard operating procedure governing closure of Metro stations during protests.

The bench, however, cautioned against treating an SOP as a legal prerequisite in every law-and-order situation.

“The concept of SOP is actually a mirage. When it comes to a law-and-order question, courts have deferred to the executive authority. It is only in cases when it becomes disproportionate that courts step in,” it observed.

The court said it would therefore examine how the executive discretion was exercised in shutting down the stations.

“Ordinarily, regulation of movement of vehicles is through directions issued by the Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police under the respective police laws,” said the bench while examining the source of the authorities’ power.

The counsel countered that the issue in the present case was different because the action was not merely regulation of movement. “Under the Metro Act, there is no provision under which they can shut down a Metro station. There is no such provision,” he said, pointing out that underground railways fall within the Union List.

The 17 stations were shut in central Delhi in the wake of the CJP-led agitation at Jantar Mantar in July. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation had cited “security reasons” while suspending entry and exit at stations including Rajiv Chowk, Patel Chowk, Central Secretariat, Mandi House, ITO, Delhi Gate, Indraprastha, Khan Market, Jor Bagh, Shivaji Stadium and the Supreme Court station. Interchange facilities remained available at some stations.

The closures affected thousands of commuters and triggered a separate intervention by the Supreme Court after the Supreme Court Bar Association raised concerns about access to the court. On July 23, CJI Kant had said he would intervene if the issue was not resolved by lunchtime and directed that no adverse orders be passed against lawyers unable to appear because of the disruption.

The closures continued for several days as the protests intensified, with 17 stations shut for the third consecutive day on July 24. Contemporary reports recorded significant disruption to office-goers, students and other commuters who were forced to find alternative and often more expensive modes of transport.