Trinamool Congress MP and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy has moved the Supreme Court challenging the preventive detention of Opposition leaders, including four former chief ministers, and other individuals during Saturday’s protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, prompting a special sitting of the court on Sunday.
A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana will hear the matter on October 11, along with a separate contempt petition alleging that authorities failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s Friday order against a blanket shutdown of Metro and railway services ahead of the demonstrations.
Track live updates from Delhi protests
TMC MP questions detention of protestors, Oppn leaders
Guruswamy has questioned the police action of picking up protesters from the streets and Opposition leaders from their residences, arguing that preventive detention cannot be used to suppress the fundamental right to peaceful protest, particularly when it involves political leaders who have previously governed states.
The petition follows Saturday’s crackdown on a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other political groups at Jantar Mantar, demanding Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Delhi Police had denied permission for the demonstration, citing security considerations.
{{/usCountry}}The petition follows Saturday’s crackdown on a protest called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other political groups at Jantar Mantar, demanding Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Delhi Police had denied permission for the demonstration, citing security considerations.
{{/usCountry}}The court will also consider a contempt plea filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) chairperson D Thara, alleging that the authorities failed to implement its October 9 directions on public transport and traffic management.
The petition, filed through advocate Chand Qureshi, contends that despite the Supreme Court’s order requiring the authorities to ensure that commuters were not inconvenienced, 57 Metro stations remained subject to closure restrictions, several trains scheduled to arrive at or depart from New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin stations were cancelled, and no traffic advisory was published in newspapers.
Also Read | INDIA bloc to hold mega protest in Delhi on October 12, TMC says Mamata Banerjee to join
“Notwithstanding the solemn judicial mandate and the assurance recorded before the bench of the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the contemnors have consciously maintained a blanket shutdown across transit corridors, persisted with unwarranted train cancellations, and failed to issue or publicize transparent traffic and transit advisories,” the contempt plea said.
It alleged that the measures had severely disrupted public life in the national capital, stranded essential travellers and amounted to a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the court.
What order did SC pass on curbs on Friday?
The contempt proceedings arise from Friday’s hearing before a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant, along with Justices Bagchi and V Mohana, on a petition filed by CPI(M) general secretary MA Baby challenging the sweeping restrictions imposed ahead of Saturday’s proposed protest.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan had told the court that the restrictions, including Metro station closures, train cancellations and extensive road barricading, would cause disproportionate hardship to ordinary residents who depended on public transport to commute to work, attend educational institutions and access essential services.
The bench questioned the rationale for a blanket shutdown, emphasising that security concerns could justify regulating public transport but not bringing the entire system to a halt.
“Stopping something and regulating are two different concepts. One can regulate but it is completely different to put a halt on everything…you cannot stop everything,” the bench observed, adding that authorities could not use a “hammer to kill a fly”.
In its order, the court clarified that there should be no outright prohibition on Metro services and that authorities could allow Metro trains and other rail services to operate in a suitable and regulated manner. It also directed that traffic advisories be published in newspapers and on online platforms to ensure that commuters faced no hardship while travelling within the city.
The court directed the authorities to give wide publicity to their decisions and ordered the DMRC, the relevant railway authorities and Delhi Police’s traffic wing to file a compliance report within four days.