The Supreme Court is hearing petitions linked to protests by opposition leaders and others at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi, with the proceedings focusing on restrictions affecting public movement, metro services, internet access and peaceful protest.
The hearing included sharp exchanges between lawyers and police officials. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the dispute was broader than contempt of court. He questioned the removal of passengers from trains, restrictions beyond a four-kilometre area and the suspension of internet services.
The bench said it wanted to examine whether police action met the requirements of freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. It also noted that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 operates within constitutional limits.
Metro services and public movement
The court said it would pass an interim order under which metro services would operate normally unless a law-and-order situation made restrictions necessary. It also said public movement should be restored and internet services brought back.
The court further said lawyers should not face obstruction while performing their professional duties. The directions, as described during the hearing, directly concern commuters, residents, lawyers and people seeking to participate in or travel through the affected areas.
The Centre told the court that restrictions had been imposed at 45 metro stations, described as 15% of the total. The bench asked the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to provide a map identifying the stations affected.
The proceedings also contained a reference to 47 stations being closed, creating a difference in the figures presented during the hearing.
Challenge to restrictions around Jantar Mantar
Sibal argued that Section 163 could not be applied beyond a four-kilometre radius. He said people outside that area should not be detained, traffic should not be disrupted and barricades should not be installed. He also sought the right to hold peaceful demonstrations within the designated protest area.
He argued that citizens should not need to apply for permission to protest at a place designated for demonstrations. He also said that people had been removed from trains and that restrictions had continued outside the stated area.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi said police officials did not possess any personal authority above the state merely in the name of maintaining law and order. He stressed that the rights to life and personal liberty were equally important for police officers and ordinary citizens.
Lawyers describe alleged detentions and force
Senior advocate Shadan Farasat said the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association had filed a petition. He alleged that he had been subjected to violence and placed in a moving bus, adding that the issue extended beyond lawyers to the right of citizens to protest.
Farasat described the conditions in the city as repressive and asked the court to restore the right to peaceful protest in the capital. His submissions characterised the events as a wider question of civil liberties rather than an issue limited to legal professionals.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that the disruption of metro services and suspension of internet access had affected freedom of movement and constitutional rights. Referring to Article 358, she questioned whether the restrictions implied an undeclared Emergency and referred to the earlier constitutional history surrounding Article 19 and the ADM Jabalpur case.
Gopal Shankaranarayanan referred to video evidence while alleging that action had been taken against people and lawyers outside the designated Jantar Mantar area. He also raised concerns about alleged assaults involving unarmed children and restrictions imposed outside the Supreme Court.
He asked the court to restore movement without waiting for notices, remove barricades and resume metro services. He also sought accountability for those responsible and questioned action by police personnel allegedly wearing uniforms without nameplates or identification marks.
Another senior advocate, Hariharan, said practising lawyers were unable to travel from one part of the city to another. A woman advocate said about 150 lawyers had gathered and begun walking peacefully before 4 people were detained at a traffic light and taken away in a prison van.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court is examining whether the restrictions on movement, communication, metro services and peaceful protest comply with constitutional protections. It has indicated an interim order on metro operations, public movement, internet services and lawyers' professional access, while seeking a map of the affected stations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. What is the Supreme Court hearing?
The court is hearing petitions connected with protests at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and the restrictions imposed during them.
Q. What restrictions are under examination?
The hearing concerns metro restrictions, internet suspension, limits on public movement, barricading and alleged detentions.
Q. What did the court say about metro services?
The court said metro services should operate normally unless a law-and-order situation made restrictions necessary.
Q. How many metro stations were cited in the hearing?
The Centre referred to 45 stations and described them as 15% of the total. The proceedings also contained a reference to 47 closed stations.
Q. What did the court ask the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to provide?
The court asked the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to provide a map identifying the affected stations.
Q. Which constitutional provisions were discussed?
The hearing referred to Articles 19, 21 and 358, along with the ADM Jabalpur case.
Q. What did lawyers allege about movement and detention?
Lawyers alleged that people were removed from trains, detained beyond a four-kilometre area and prevented from moving through the city.
Q. What did the court say about police authority?
Justice Joymalya Bagchi said police officials did not have personal authority above the state while maintaining law and order.
