The Supreme Court of India has taken a stern view of the ongoing situation regarding the Delhi protests, issuing a formal show-cause notice to the government in a contempt of court case. During the hearing, the bench expressed significant concern over the alleged violation of previous judicial directions and has demanded a comprehensive response from the government by Tuesday, October 13. The court is currently hearing multiple petitions related to the Delhi protests, all of which have been tagged together for a collective judicial review.
Judicial Reminder and Contempt Warning
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court reminded the relevant authorities of its earlier order passed on October 9. This specific order had explicitly directed that metro train services shouldn't be abruptly halted and that the movement of the general public shouldn't be unnecessarily obstructed. The bench questioned why contempt proceedings shouldn't be initiated against the authorities for what appeared to be a blatant disregard for the court's instructions, while the court noted that the open defiance of judicial orders necessitated a formal explanation from the government side.
Directives on Public Movement and Internet Services
In a significant move to protect the fundamental rights of citizens, the Supreme Court directed the central government to ensure the regular operation of the Delhi Metro under the provisions of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Plus, the court ordered the immediate removal of barricades across Delhi to facilitate smoother movement. In addition to physical mobility, the court also focused on digital connectivity, instructing the authorities to restore internet services that had been disrupted during the protests. When the issue of implementing Section 163 was raised, Justice Bagchi noted that such information isn't typically provided on an individual basis, but emphasized the need for transparency in administrative actions.
Arguments from Legal Luminaries
The hearing saw participation from several high-profile legal experts, while justice Bagchi noted that the court had already heard Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. K. Venugopal also joined the proceedings online, representing one of the petitioners. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal expressed his gratitude to the Supreme Court for holding a special hearing on this matter, to which Justice Bagchi responded by stating that the court is always available for the service of the nation. The bench also mentioned that new petitions filed in this regard would be taken up for hearing on Monday.
Allegations of Rights Violations and Police Action
Counsel for one of the petitioners argued that citizens weren't even allowed to stand in various parts of Delhi, describing it as an open violation of fundamental rights. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan presented evidence via a pen drive, including screen-grabs of videos showing actions taken against lawyers. He highlighted that several individuals, including Shadan, were taken into custody. Sankaranarayanan pointed out that these incidents occurred well beyond the perimeter of Jantar Mantar and noted that Section 163 was still in effect outside the Supreme Court itself. He described the reports of violence, including the alleged beating and kicking of unarmed children, as shocking and emotional for the legal community.
Personal Accounts and Detention Figures
Advocate Menaka Guruswamy shared a personal account, stating that when she and other lawyers reached a red light from the Setalvad Chamber, they were surrounded by police, and she was forcibly pulled by a female officer despite being peaceful. Other lawyers argued that the case is fundamentally about the freedom of expression. It was claimed during the hearing that approximately 6 to 7 thousand people were detained from various locations, including the Delhi border and Gurgaon. Justice Bagchi acknowledged the gravity of these claims, stating that police officers don't have the personal authority to maintain law and order unless a decision is made by the state administration. He assured the petitioners that the court would investigate the matter thoroughly to protect life and liberty.
Government Defense and Affidavit Requirement
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the government's actions, stating that those detained were taken into custody under established laws. He informed the court that lawyers who were detained were released by 2 PM. The SG argued that some of the speeches made by the opposing counsel were political in nature and maintained that the government had followed the principle of proportionality as suggested by the court. However, Justice Bagchi asked the SG to clarify in an affidavit whether entry and exit were indeed blocked at 45 metro stations. The SG claimed that all stations had been open since 10 PM last night and that any previous closures were brief and in accordance with court orders. The Supreme Court has now directed the government to file a compliance affidavit, reiterating that metro stations must remain open based on public need and that while the court doesn't manage law and order, it must ensure that civil rights aren't violated.