In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today directed Delhi authorities to immediately remove all barricades across the capital and ensure the full restoration of internet services. The directives came during a special hearing on October 11, 2026, addressing multiple petitions, including a contempt plea alleging non-compliance with its October 9 order against complete shutdowns of train and metro services amidst ongoing protests.
The bench sharply questioned the imposition of prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) directly outside the Supreme Court's own premises during the so-called CJP protest. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, was instructed to obtain immediate details regarding these orders, for which he initially had no instructions.
Court Questions Police Restrictions and Metro Closures
Petitioners highlighted alleged illegal detentions of political leaders, lawyers, and citizens, as well as assaults on advocates and journalists, internet blackouts, and the sudden closure of 45 Metro stations. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) president informed the court that lawyers were not notified about the restrictions, with some allegedly picked up from their chambers. Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that lack of notification alone could be grounds to quash such orders.
Addressing the widespread transport disruptions, the Supreme Court accepted the government's assurance that Metro operations would remain normalized unless a fresh public order situation arose. The court also asked the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to submit a map detailing all station closures during the protests, questioning the logic of closing middle stations while leaving terminal ones open, which complicated commuter movement.
Right to Protest vs. Public Order
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for petitioners, argued for an interim order allowing incoming trains to reach Delhi and opposed Section 163 restrictions beyond a four-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar. He emphasized citizens' constitutional right to peaceful protest under Article 19(1)(a), asserting that statutory law or the Police Act could not curtail these rights beyond what was strictly necessary for public order. SG Mehta countered that permission for the protest had not been sought.
Justice Bagchi framed the core legal issue as the interaction between police restrictions and constitutional protections under Article 19(2). While acknowledging the undisputed right to protest, he stressed that the manner of exercising this right must comply with the law. The court took the government's assurance on record regarding internet restoration and metro services, directing the Centre to file a comprehensive response to all pending petitions. In the interim, metro services must operate on their normal schedule, subject only to lawful public-order restrictions.