Supreme Court On CJP Protest: No Total Shutdown Of Metro And Trains

The Supreme Court of India has issued a significant directive regarding the restrictions on Metro and railway services in Delhi ahead of the proposed CJP protest at Jantar Mantar. While the court didn't place a stay on the protest itself, it expressed deep concern over the potential for a total shutdown of public transport. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant clarified that the movement of Metro trains shouldn't be completely halted. The court instructed authorities to maintain Metro and railway services with appropriate regulations and ensured that any decisions made in this regard are widely publicized to minimize inconvenience for the general public.

Details of the Supreme Court Order

In its order, the bench led by CJI Surya Kant noted the communications presented before it. This included a letter dated 8 October from the Office of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Transport Range, sent to the Managing Director of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). Plus, a communication dated 9 October issued by the Railways to all Zonal Railways was also discussed. These documents detailed restrictions on Metro services and the arrival of mail and express trains at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations due to the planned demonstration at Jantar Mantar.

The court observed that the relevant orders had been made effective from 9 October. During the hearing, the court had initially offered the organizers of the protest the opportunity to approach the court via an urgent petition, while however, their legal counsel clarified that they weren't representing the protesters at that moment. No separate petition had been filed by the organizers in the court either. The Supreme Court noted that all parties agreed it was time to identify and designate an alternative site with proper facilities for peaceful protesters, while the court suggested that competent authorities should consider this proposal and take an appropriate decision.

Total Ban vs. Regulation

The Supreme Court stated that the limited question before it was whether the total stoppage of Metro and train movement at certain stations, in view of the proposed protest, constituted a proportional restriction. The court deliberated on whether this decision required a formal review. After the court highlighted the distinction between a total ban and regulated movement, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench that he would ask the concerned authorities to reconsider the restrictions. This was intended to ensure that Metro and railway services could continue under reasonable regulation rather than a complete shutdown.

Instructions for Advance Public Information

The court explicitly stated in its order that there would be no total ban on the movement of Metro trains. It directed authorities to ensure that any decisions regarding the operation of Metro and other railway services are given wide publicity. This is to ensure that passengers are informed in advance and the inconvenience to the common man is minimized. The Supreme Court emphasized the 'Principle of Proportionality' in this entire arrangement. This means that while necessary steps must be taken to maintain law and order, the option of running services in a controlled manner should be preferred over a total shutdown in the name of security.

Courtroom Exchanges and Observations

CJI Surya Kant remarked during the hearing that information regarding potential restrictions and travel difficulties should be provided to the public in advance. He noted that if safe travel isn't possible during certain hours, passengers must receive prior notice so they can make alternative arrangements, while he stated that it's better to inform people beforehand rather than letting them reach Metro stations, stand in queues, and then face uncertainty. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed with the court's concerns but noted that it's difficult to give a binding assurance that limits authorities based on future predictions. He argued that law enforcement agencies must have some flexibility to make decisions based on ground realities, while mehta also suggested that if circumstances demand, stopping services for a few hours could also be a proportional step.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi responded by saying that this would depend on the duration of the stoppage and the prevailing circumstances. He gave an example that if services are only open from 2 to 4 in the morning and closed for the rest of the day, it would practically amount to a total ban. The Solicitor General maintained that authorities must decide based on the situation. The court reiterated that while security arrangements are essential, the impact on the movement of ordinary citizens and their access to essential services must be considered.

Contradictions in Metro Notices

The Supreme Court also took note of the notices issued by the Railways and Metro. Justice Joymalya Bagchi pointed out a contradiction in the Metro notice, which mentioned reducing frequency on one hand and closing stations on the other. He remarked that reducing frequency is a form of regulation, whereas closing stations is a restriction, while cJI Surya Kant added that 'closing' means a complete shutdown. Lawyers pointed out that the notices mentioned keeping stations closed until further orders, which the court found problematic.

Suggestions for Alternative Protest Sites

CJI Surya Kant observed that the geographical location of the current protest site is causing several problems. He suggested that if another open space could be identified and permitted for protests, it would protect democratic rights while providing necessary facilities. He mentioned that someone in the protest might fall ill, and there could be children or individuals needing special protection. So, a larger space could be considered where health and other emergency services could reach easily in case of an emergency. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal noted that Ramlila Maidan wasn't being provided as an alternative. He argued that if permission was being denied for Jantar Mantar, the police could have allowed the protest at Ramlila Maidan, while solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that competent authorities would consider designating a place other than Jantar Mantar for peaceful protests.

Questions on Election Rallies and Previous Protests

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan questioned whether similar restrictions are imposed when large numbers of people come to Delhi for election rallies. He noted that political rallies also draw hundreds and thousands of people, yet such restrictions are rarely questioned. The CJI clarified that Kapil Sibal wasn't representing the protesters but was raising the concerns of citizens affected by the restrictions in Delhi, while solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that he wouldn't want to risk the life, safety, or property of any citizen. He mentioned that since people were being urged to reach Delhi from various places, the police had to make security arrangements. He cited a previous protest where organizers asked for permission for 20 June for a one-day event from 10 am to 4 or 5 pm, but it continued for 17 days. Mehta alleged that several conditions were violated during that time, including attempts to march toward the restricted area near Parliament.

Rights of Every Citizen

CJI Surya Kant reminded that in the case of the farmers' protest, the court had made it clear that a protest site can't be occupied permanently. He stated that trade unions, students, traders, and other citizens also have the right to protest and use the roads. The Solicitor General also cited injuries to police personnel and others during past protests and mentioned that while protecting the rights of protesters is important, the safety of other citizens is also the government's responsibility. He spoke about placing videos of alleged misconduct against female police officers before the court. During the hearing, senior lawyers raised the issue of the proposal to close entry and exit gates of 57 Metro stations and the cancellation of several trains. They argued that such large-scale restrictions based on the apprehension of a protest would affect ordinary citizens. CJI Surya Kant told the Solicitor General that instead of completely shutting down Metro services, options like reducing frequency could be explored.

The Principle of Proportionality

CJI Surya Kant emphasized that the 'Principle of Proportionality' must be kept in mind while taking steps to maintain law and order. He famously remarked, 'You've to stop certain things, so take only as many measures as are necessary... ' Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested that the court's comment shouldn't be reported in a way that suggests the CJI accused the government of using a hammer to kill a fly. The CJI clarified that while there is no problem with taking precautions, security measures also affect common people. He stated that maintaining law and order is the government's responsibility, but this responsibility isn't limited to protecting government property; the safety of ordinary citizens is equally important.

Review of Barricading and Train Cancellations

The CJI noted that women, small children, the elderly, and patients also travel on these routes. Their safety and convenience must be considered. The court suggested a review of barricading as well. If a barricade is placed, the administration should clarify which roads will be closed and what alternative routes are available, while the court also expressed concern over the cancellation of trains at major Delhi stations. It was informed that several trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin were cancelled from their originating stations, while kapil Sibal questioned how a train coming from Kerala to Delhi could face such restrictions. The court concluded by expecting the government to immediately review the restrictions, Metro services, rail operations, and barricading to ensure that everyday needs of the people aren't unnecessarily affected.