The Supreme Court has directed that barricades across Delhi be removed unless they are considered highly necessary, during a special hearing on police action and the detention of protesters during demonstrations held on 10 October.

The order focuses on restoring normal movement for residents while keeping law-and-order requirements in view. The court said citizens' freedom of movement should be normalised within the applicable legal framework.

What the court said

The bench of Justice Jaimalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana said citizens have a full right to protest. However, the manner in which demonstrations are conducted must remain within the rules of the Police Act.

The hearing concerned a contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. The petition referred to a Supreme Court order of 9 October in a separate matter involving the closure of 57 metro stations and the cancellation of trains arriving in Delhi during the protests.

The court also made clear that the right to express views and demonstrate does not remove the requirement to follow police regulations. Its direction on barricades was linked to the need to balance public movement with law-and-order considerations.

Notices issued to authorities

The Supreme Court issued notices to the Delhi Police, the Union Home Secretary, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and other concerned authorities. The notices relate to the detention of protesters and the circumstances surrounding the police response.

The special hearing began with the bench indicating that all lawyers present would receive an opportunity to make submissions because of the seriousness of the matters before it. When lawyers thanked the court for taking up the hearing, Justice Bagchi said there was no need for thanks and that the court was always serving the country.

Claims raised during the hearing

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal challenged the detentions and the order imposing Section 163, described in the report as a prohibitory order. He told the court that police were removing people from trains and taking them into custody.

Sibal also questioned the suspension of internet services and referred to the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in the Anuradha Bhasin case.

Senior advocate Shadan Farasat raised allegations of mistreatment of protesters. He told the court that demonstrators were allegedly dragged into buses and later thrown out of them. He further argued that unarmed children and students had been beaten.

The report also states that s had appeared in the media showing Farasat himself being detained by police. Senior advocate N. Harisharan told the court that the situation had reached a point where citizens' right to travel into and around the city had also been taken away.

The allegations raised by the lawyers formed part of the hearing and were presented to the bench as arguments concerning police conduct, detention, movement restrictions and internet access.

Conclusion

The verified takeaway is that the Supreme Court ordered Delhi's barricades removed unless urgently required, reaffirmed regulated protest rights and sought responses from the police, central authorities, DMRC and other officials over the reported detentions and police action.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. What did the Supreme Court order regarding barricades?

The court directed that barricades across Delhi be removed unless they are highly necessary.

Q. When did the protests mentioned in the hearing take place?

The hearing concerned demonstrations held on 10 October.

Q. Did the court recognise a right to protest?

Yes. The court said citizens have a full right to protest, but demonstrations must follow the rules of the Police Act.

Q. Which authorities received notices?

Notices were issued to the Delhi Police, the Union Home Secretary, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and other concerned authorities.

Q. What did Kapil Sibal challenge?

Sibal challenged the detentions and the order imposing Section 163, and questioned the suspension of internet services.

Q. What issue did Shadan Farasat raise?

Farasat raised allegations of mistreatment of protesters, including claims involving buses and the treatment of children and students.

Q. What earlier court order was cited in the petition?

The petition referred to a Supreme Court order of 9 October concerning 57 metro stations and trains arriving in Delhi.