Kapil Sibal raises concerns over reported transport and hotel restrictions as the Supreme Court hears urgent plea on proposed October (Img: X).
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday raised serious concerns over restrictions affecting 57 Delhi Metro stations and reported train cancellations ahead of the October 10 Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest at Jantar Mantar, warning that security measures must not leave ordinary commuters without access to public transport.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stressed that preventive action must be proportionate to the situation, pointing out that students, employees, senior citizens and other residents depend on public transport for their daily journeys. The hearing also focused on the Delhi Police’s refusal to grant permission for the demonstration and whether the organisers had directly challenged that decision.
The Court heard submissions from senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, along with advocate Prashant Bhushan. The lawyers argued that the reported restrictions could affect people who had no connection with the planned protest.
The proceedings brought two competing concerns into focus: the authorities’ responsibility to maintain public order and the public’s right to access essential transport services without unnecessary disruption.
During the hearing, CJI Surya Kant questioned the decision to restrict access to a large number of Metro stations, highlighting the difficulties such measures could create for ordinary citizens.
The Chief Justice pointed out that not everyone owns a car or has access to private transport. People travelling from Gurugram, Greater Noida, East Delhi and South Delhi depend on the Metro to reach offices, educational institutions and other destinations.
He emphasised that the court was concerned about the impact on the general public rather than the interests of any particular protest organiser or participant.
Using the analogy of a hammer being used to kill a fly, the CJI cautioned against adopting measures that go beyond what is necessary to prevent disorder. Authorities, he indicated, could regulate crowd movement and take preventive steps, but those actions should not bring public transport to a standstill.
The remarks underlined the importance of proportionality in security planning, particularly when restrictions intended to address a potential threat could inconvenience thousands of people who need to travel for their livelihoods.
The controversy centres on a police communication issued on October 8 by the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Transport Range. It asked the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to consider closing the entry and exit gates of 57 stations from 9 pm on October 9.
The proposed restrictions could continue on October 10 until the situation returned to normal. The communication also asked the Metro operator to consider reducing train frequency at the identified stations, citing concerns over possible crowd movement towards sensitive locations.
The station list covers several parts of the capital, including central, north, northwest, northeast, east and south Delhi. Major stations named in the communication include Rajiv Chowk, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Patel Chowk, Janpath, Mandi House, ITO, Delhi Gate, Khan Market, Supreme Court and Indraprastha.
Other stations identified include Lok Kalyan Marg, Seva Teerth (Udyog Bhawan), Bara Khamba Road, R.K. Ashram Marg, Jhandewalan, Shivaji Stadium, INA, Hauz Khas, Jor Bagh, Lajpat Nagar, Jangpura, Ashram and Sarai Kale Khan-Nizamuddin.
The list also includes Kalindi Kunj, Jasola, Jamia Millia Islamia, Okhla Vihar, Chawri Bazar, Jama Masjid, Karol Bagh, Rajendra Place, Vishwavidyalaya, Vidhan Sabha, Civil Lines, Kashmere Gate, Inderlok and G.T.B. Nagar.
Stations in north and northwest Delhi named in the communication include Kanhaiya Nagar, Netaji Subhash Place, Adarsh Nagar, Jahangir Puri, Haiderpur Badli Mor, Majlis Park, Shalimar Bagh, Rithala, Rohini East and Rohini West.
The list further identifies Seelampur, Maujpur, Jafrabad, Welcome, Yamuna Vihar, Khazuri Khas and Shahdara.
However, the police communication requesting consideration of these measures must be distinguished from formal confirmation by the Metro operator. At the time covered by the reported proceedings, DMRC had not formally confirmed the proposed closures. The final impact on passengers would depend on the directions actually implemented.
If access restrictions or reduced train frequency affect these stations, commuters could face longer journeys, crowded alternative routes and difficulties reaching workplaces, colleges, hospitals and commercial areas.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for CPI(M) leader M.A. Baby, raised concerns about reported cancellations of trains arriving in Delhi, including services bound for Hazrat Nizamuddin railway station.
Sibal also referred to claims that hotels had been asked not to accept fresh bookings. He questioned whether the scale of the proposed preventive measures was justified by the planned demonstration.
The lawyer argued that preparations for a protest should not unnecessarily restrict the movement of people travelling to Delhi for work, family commitments or other essential purposes.
During the exchange, Sibal questioned the wider implications of the restrictions, prompting Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to respond. The discussion touched on the principle that public authorities must consider the interests of all citizens when making decisions affecting public movement.
Sibal was representing M.A. Baby, who was approaching the court but was not himself organising the demonstration. The lawyers sought urgent consideration because the protest was scheduled for October 10 and the related proceedings before the Delhi High Court had been adjourned.
Their concern was that waiting for a later hearing could leave limited time to resolve the issues before the planned gathering.
Another important issue during the hearing was the Delhi Police’s decision to deny permission for the CJP demonstration at Jantar Mantar.
Justice Bagchi questioned why the organisers had not directly challenged the refusal. The Bench indicated that it would need to examine the permission issue alongside the proportionality of the restrictions being considered by the authorities.
The court sought additional information about the organisers, the expected size of the gathering and the steps taken to obtain permission.
The observations highlighted that the right to peaceful assembly must be exercised within the applicable legal framework. At the same time, the question of whether a demonstration has permission is distinct from whether preventive measures affecting the wider public are necessary and proportionate.
The Bench indicated that it needed to hear the authorities and examine the relevant details before reaching a conclusion. It also considered the possibility of urgent consideration of a related case before the Delhi High Court.
No final ruling had been delivered at the stage described in the proceedings declaring the proposed restrictions unlawful.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi questioned the scale of the reported security preparations. His submissions referred to the alleged deployment of 221 companies of Central Armed Police Forces, preparations for detention centres, transport-related restrictions, hotel booking concerns and advisories concerning participation in the protest.
The lawyers argued that preventive measures should be based on a clear assessment of the risks and should not extend beyond what is needed to address them.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing on behalf of residents likely to be affected, stressed the principle of proportionality. He argued that action intended to prevent a possible law-and-order problem should not impose an excessive burden on the wider population.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan also raised concerns about reported restrictions and their potential impact on residents. The claims presented during the hearing had not all been independently established and should be understood as submissions made by the lawyers.
The central issue was whether authorities could manage potential security risks through targeted arrangements rather than measures that might unnecessarily disrupt transport and other services.
Advocate Vrinda Grover informed the Supreme Court that the Delhi Police had refused permission for the CJP demonstration at Jantar Mantar.
She also referred to a separate petition filed by the Indian Youth Congress before the Delhi High Court seeking permission for a protest. According to the submissions, that matter had been adjourned until Monday, despite the October 10 date of the planned CJP gathering.
Grover argued that extensive barricading could make it difficult for people to reach Jantar Mantar, even though it is a designated venue for demonstrations.
The Supreme Court considered whether the related High Court matter could be taken up urgently. The Bench sought further particulars about the proposed gathering and the organisers’ legal position before determining what intervention might be appropriate.
The proceedings therefore involve both the organisers’ ability to seek permission for a peaceful demonstration and the question of whether the associated preventive measures could impose avoidable hardship on the public.
The CJP has called for a demonstration at Jantar Mantar demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The mobilisation is also linked to opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The dispute forms part of a broader political debate concerning voter-list revisions, electoral transparency and the functioning of election authorities. Allegations of electoral irregularities raised by political parties remain contested claims and should not be treated as established findings.
The Delhi Police has cited the short notice for the gathering, concerns arising from an earlier protest and possible law-and-order and traffic-management challenges as reasons for refusing permission. Authorities have also referred to prohibitory restrictions imposed under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in parts of New Delhi.
These circumstances have intensified the debate over how authorities should manage demonstrations while protecting the rights and everyday needs of people who are not participating.
The Supreme Court’s observations have placed the proposed Metro restrictions under scrutiny, particularly their potential impact on ordinary commuters. The Bench sought further information about the organisers, the permission process and the planned gathering, while the possibility of urgent consideration by the Delhi High Court was also discussed.
The next developments could clarify whether the organisers pursue a direct challenge to the police refusal, whether the related High Court matter is heard urgently and what final directions are issued regarding transport and security arrangements.
For commuters, the immediate concern is whether their regular routes will be affected. For protest organisers, the issue is whether they can pursue a lawful route to hold the demonstration. For authorities, the challenge is to maintain public order without unnecessarily restricting access to essential services.
The court’s central message is that preventive measures must address genuine risks while remaining proportionate to the situation. Any final assessment of the Metro restrictions will depend on the measures actually implemented and subsequent directions from the relevant authorities or courts.
