SC directs normal Metro, rail services, uninterrupted internet in Delhi
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Sunday directed the authorities to ensure normal functioning of Metro and railway services, uninterrupted internet connectivity and free movement of people in the national capital, while making it clear that lawyers should not be obstructed in discharging their professional duties.
A Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the directions while hearing a clutch of contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s October 9 order concerning the operation of Metro and railway services ahead of a proposed protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.
The apex court directed the authorities to ensure that Metro and railway services function normally unless restrictions become necessary in view of a disturbance to public order. It further directed that free movement of people in the city be permitted, subject to traffic regulations, and that the requirement of barricades be reviewed forthwith, keeping in mind law and order and other traffic conditions.
Taking note of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s submissions that Metro services had been normalised and internet connectivity restored, the Justice Bagchi-led Bench recorded the assurance that the facilities would continue to function normally.
It also directed that internet services remain undisturbed, while clarifying that it was not taking away the authorities’ powers under the Information Technology Act.
Stressing the need to protect access to justice, the Supreme Court said lawyers must not be impeded in discharging their professional duties.
SG Mehta, the Centre’s second-highest law officer, assured the apex court that lawyers would not be obstructed in their work.
The Justice Bagchi-led Bench further directed that there should be no detention except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly in the case of peaceful and unarmed gatherings outside the area where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in operation.
It also directed the authorities to take down, if not already done, a board indicating the imposition of Section 163 restrictions around the Supreme Court premises.
The top court directed the alleged contemnors to file affidavits responding to the contempt petition and submit a compliance report explaining their adherence to the earlier order.
Other unlisted petitions mentioned before the Supreme Court are to be served on the office of the Solicitor General and tagged with the pending contempt proceedings and writ petition.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Metro was functioning normally and that there had been no reduction in the overall volume of train operations on October 10. However, the Centre’s law officer acknowledged that entry and exit at several stations had been restricted.
The Justice Bagchi-led Bench asked the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to clarify the status of the affected stations through an affidavit, observing that the authorities had initially proposed closing 57 stations before the number was reduced following the Supreme Court’s intervention.
The Supreme Court also sought details of advisories issued by the railway authorities and directed the Union government to file its response to the contempt petitions, along with the compliance report, by Tuesday.
It ordered that Metro services continue in accordance with the normal schedule, subject to restrictions necessitated by a public order situation.
The urgent Sunday hearing was convened after petitions alleged that the Supreme Court’s October 9 directions had been violated on October 10, with restrictions on Metro and railway services, a shutdown of internet connectivity and widespread detention of people resulting in a curfew-like situation in Delhi.
Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners claimed that several Metro stations, including GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya, had remained inaccessible and that people, including lawyers, journalists, students and political leaders, were detained despite the top court’s earlier directions.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in a separate plea challenging the preventive detention of opposition leaders, alleged that more than 7,000 people, including student leaders, journalists and political figures, had been detained. She argued that preventive detention could not be used to suppress the fundamental right to peaceful protest.
Guruswamy contended that restrictions on Metro services and internet connectivity had impeded people’s movement and access to justice.
Other senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Sanjay Hegde, also raised concerns over alleged restrictions on lawyers and the detention of people beyond the area covered by prohibitory orders.
The Justice Bagchi-led Bench was informed that around 150 lawyers had been detained after assembling outside the Supreme Court premises and that some police personnel were not wearing visible identification badges.
On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the authorities had documents and videos showing that some people detained around 2 p.m. had been released by 6 p.m.
The Centre’s law officer argued that the habeas corpus plea might no longer survive in view of their release, while leaving the question of the legality of the detentions to the top court.
On Friday, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, had directed that there should be no complete prohibition on the movement of Metro trains ahead of the proposed protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
The Supreme Court had asked the authorities to ensure that Metro and other railway services operated in a suitably regulated manner to minimise inconvenience to the public and had directed them to issue adequate traffic advisories.
The Delhi Police had denied permission for the proposed demonstration, citing concerns over public safety, traffic management and law and order, and stating that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in force in the New Delhi area.
