In a significant legal development, a massive front of 146 lawyers has been formed against the Delhi Police and the administration in the Supreme Court of India. The legal battle centers around allegations of violating a Supreme Court order dated October 9, the illegal detention of thousands of individuals, the closure of numerous metro stations, and the suspension of internet services across the national capital. A special hearing on this matter took place on October 11 before a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana. The scale of the legal representation against the police is unprecedented, with 146 advocates appearing for the petitioners and intervenors.
Core Allegations Against Delhi Police
The petitioners have raised serious concerns regarding the actions taken by the Delhi Police and the administration. According to the arguments presented in court, the authorities allegedly failed to comply with the Supreme Court's directives issued on October 9. One of the primary grievances is the closure of more than 45 metro stations across Delhi, including key hubs like GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya. This move Notably hampered the movement of students and the general public. On top of that, the petitioners alleged that the New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations were kept closed, and internet services were disrupted, creating a curfew-like atmosphere in the city.
Senior Advocate Dr. Menka Guruswamy, leading the charge, claimed that approximately 7,000 people were taken into illegal custody. Another major point of contention was the placement of notice boards citing Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) around the Supreme Court premises. The lawyers argued that such measures were intended to intimidate and restrict the movement of legal professionals and citizens alike.
Prominent Legal Figures in the Case
The legal team representing the petitioners includes some of the most distinguished names in the Indian legal fraternity, while k. Venugopal questioned the defiance of court orders and the imposition of restrictions. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued against the high-handedness of the police and the violation of fundamental civil rights. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan focused on the illegality of completely halting public transport, while Senior Advocate N. Hariharan termed the restrictions on movement in Delhi as unconstitutional.
Other prominent senior advocates who presented arguments include Shadan Farasat, Shoaib Alam, Sanjay Hegde, Dr. Monika Gusain, and Arundhati Katju. They collectively argued for the protection of civil liberties and against the practice of illegal detentions, while advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi presented the petition in-person, supported by a vast array of legal professionals.
Complete List of 146 Lawyers Involved
The following is the comprehensive list of the 146 lawyers who appeared for the petitioners and intervenors in the Supreme Court:
- Dr. Menka Guruswamy
- Chand Qureshi
- Shailendra Mani Tripathi
- Rakesh Kumar
- Pradeep Kumar Yadav
- Pooja Shilpkar
- Priyendu Raghav Mishra
- Vishal Kumar
- Tayyab Khan Salmani
- Harish Lodhi
- Mujahid Ahmed
- Mohit Yadav
- Imran Siddiqui
- Shahid Ali Siddiqui
- Gaurav Yadav
- Davinder Pal Kaur
- Mohammad Shahzad Ansari
- Shahzad Naqvi
- Arif Ali
- Anjali Kumari
- Deepak Yadav
- Sanjay Hegde
- Devvrat
- Yugandhara Pawar Jha
- Khushbu Sahu
- Nivedita Nair
- Meenakshi Kalra
- Anas Tanvir
- Gaurav Kumar
- S. Mishra
- Naman Shrestha
- Vishal Tiwari
- Anuj Saxena
- Kapil Sibal
- N. Hariharan
- P.V. Dinesh
- Subhash Chandran
- Aniruddha K.P.
- Aseemandla
- Aparajita Jamwal
- Siddharth K.
- Sumedh Sarkar
- Nikhil Pahwa
- Arjan Singh Mandla
- Mandakini Singh
- Fidel Tom
- Dhruv Kumar
- Sunita Majumdar
- Ranjit Kumar Biswas
- Shah Mohammad
- K.K. Venugopal
- Gopal Sankaranarayanan
- Pooja Dhar
- Chinmayee Chandra
- Vishal Sinha
- Shaurya Dasgupta
- Siddharth Venugopal
- Tushar Srivastava
- Bijharini Gopal Krishnan
- Rishav Ranjan
- Samriddhi Agarwal
- Divyansh Thakur
- Gantavya Vashisht
- Nivedita Rani
- Arpit Malviya
- Pratishtha Agarwal
- Apar Gupta
- Aditya Mishra
- Aditya Dubey
- Dhandapani M.
- Shoaib Alam
- Fauzia Shakil
- Rashmi Singh
- Ujjwal Singh
- Khalid Ali
- Nazmin Ahmed
- Surit Choubey
- Ishta Singh
- Avi Singh
- Arundhati Katju
- Lavkesh Bhambhani
- Ritika Meena
- Spruha Pachauri
- Shashwati Parhi
- Anmol Gupta
- Bhumika Yadav
- Aljo Joseph
- Pallavi Barua
- Reena Pandey
- Narendra Mishra
- Akanksha Tiwari
- Tanushree Bhalla
- Ashish Pandey
- Meenu Padha
- Mohsin Alam
- Shadan Farasat
- Dr. Monika Gusain
- Vipin
- Hemraj Murmu
- Ajit Kumar Ekka
- Sunil Roy
- Dimple Singh
- Kaifi Beniwal
- Praneet Pranav
- Bhaskar Gautam
- V.C. Shukla
- Lakshya S. Pandey
- Astha Singh
- Isha B.
- Saurabh Mishra
- Santosh Kumar
- Tadimalla Bhaskar Gautam
- Alabhya Dhamija
- Vishal Kumar Singh
- Vivek Kumar Pandey
- Jyoti Tiwari
- Krishna Kant Dubey
- Gopal Jha
- Jahnavi Verma
- Jainendra Kumar
- Mahima Pandey
- Surya Pratap Tyagi
- Sunil Kumar
- Shrey Ravi Dambhare
- Dheeraj
- Sanjeev Kumar
- Kunal Mehra
- Pawan Narang
- Piyush Beriwal
- Ruchita Srivastava
- Sparsh Jain
- Kirti Uppal
- Neeraj
- Satya Ranjan Swain
- Shoumendu Mukherjee
- Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- Kautilya Birat
- Tushar Hajarti
- B.L. Shivhare
- Shivam Kumar
- Himanshu पाठक
- Vedansh Anand
- Rahul G. Tanwar
- Nishant Kumar
- Rachna Srivastava
- Akash Vajpayee
Government Defense and Court Directives
V. Raju, along with 11 other lawyers, refuted the allegations. The government maintained that the measures were necessary to maintain law and order. They stated that out of 303 metro stations in Delhi, only 45 were temporarily closed and have since been reopened. They also claimed that internet services have been restored.
The Supreme Court, observing that a prima facie case of contempt exists, issued notices to the concerned officials and demanded a response by October 13. The court directed that metro and internet services must operate normally and that peaceful protesters shouldn't be illegally detained. Plus, the court ordered the removal of the Section 163 notice boards from outside the Supreme Court and emphasized that lawyers, journalists, and other professionals must not be hindered in their work. The next hearing is scheduled for October 13.