The Supreme Court on Sunday directed authorities to remove unnecessary barricades across Delhi and restore the free movement of people and traffic while hearing petitions linked to the police action during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) demonstration on October 10.
A special two-judge Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that no person participating peacefully in a gathering could be illegally detained. The court also directed that those seeking to exercise their right to protest should not be obstructed, subject to public order requirements.
The Bench accepted the government’s assurance that Metro services would return to normal and continue operating normally unless a public order situation developed. It further ordered that internet services remain available and that lawyers be allowed to discharge their professional responsibilities without obstruction.
Observing that the right to movement and peaceful protest is fundamental, the court directed Metro and rail services to function normally and internet facilities to remain undisturbed in accordance with the law.
The court also ordered the lifting of restrictions imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita outside the Supreme Court. The direction was issued to ensure that people could access the court and seek justice.
Notice was issued to the Centre on a petition filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who has sought contempt proceedings against authorities for allegedly disobeying the court’s directions. The Delhi Police was asked to submit a detailed response by Tuesday.
The Bench said it would hear lawyers seeking to mention their petitions, including matters that had not been listed. It said every party would be given an opportunity to be heard, proceeding from the right to the left side of the Bar.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that young people had joined lawful protests because they believed the election system was unfair. She argued that such demonstrations were protected by the Constitution.
Referring to Article 358, Guruswamy argued that the rights guaranteed under Article 19 could be restricted only when an Emergency had been imposed. She questioned whether the State was effectively introducing an Emergency without a formal declaration and also referred to the interim relief and contempt pleas filed in the matter.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that the issue had not arisen in the M.A. Baby case because the events in question had occurred only a day earlier. He alleged that people were being picked up from trains and locations beyond the four-kilometre zone.
Senior advocate Shadan Farasat said he and several other lawyers had been assaulted the previous day. He clarified that the lawyers were not seeking any special rights, but were raising the issue as members of the wider group of citizens affected by the restrictions.
Farasat described the situation in the capital as highly suppressive, alleging that people were not being allowed to stand on the streets and were being picked up and removed. He told the Bench that he had been placed inside a moving bus after being detained.
He maintained that the case concerned the broader right of citizens to protest, rather than the separate rights of lawyers or individuals. Farasat urged the court to restore the right to peaceful protest in Delhi, saying that the right had been effectively taken away the previous day.
Follow us
