Supreme Court Examines Contempt Allegations Over Metro Shutdown and Internet Restrictions During Delhi Protests
The Supreme Court of India convened an emergency hearing on Sunday, October 11, 2026, to address multiple petitions arising from police actions during protests in Delhi. A bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard arguments on contempt allegations, unlawful detentions, and the suspension of digital communication services. The special sitting marked direct judicial intervention into the government's response to demonstrations by the Cockroach Janta Party against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
At 10:30 AM, senior advocates and government counsel examined whether authorities had violated court orders and fundamental constitutional rights. Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi filed a contempt petition alleging that the Union Home Secretary, Delhi Police Commissioner, and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Chairperson had breached the Supreme Court's October 9 order by maintaining a blanket shutdown of public transport during the protests.
Metro closure and the contempt petition
The petition contended that 45 Metro stations remained closed and train services were cancelled despite the court's prior directive against a complete suspension of metro and rail services. Petitioners argued the restrictions exceeded what the court had permitted.
The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, contested this directly. He told the bench there had been "zero reduction" in Delhi Metro services on October 10. Mehta submitted that 271 trains were inducted into service that date, adhering to the standard Saturday schedule. This submission sought to rebut allegations of a blanket transport shutdown.
The factual dispute between petitioner and government would require the court to resolve what actually happened on the ground.
Police conduct beyond transport restrictions
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal raised concerns about detentions of individuals beyond restricted zones, suggesting police had exceeded the scope of lawful preventive action. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat alleged assault on advocates and media personnel. A habeas corpus petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Menaka Guruswamy challenged what she described as indiscriminate detentions by Delhi Police.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association moved the court under Article 32 of the Constitution, specifically challenging police actions against lawyers. The association alleged that advocates had been manhandled and injured during police operations, raising concerns about the safety of legal professionals attempting to exercise their duties during the unrest.
These allegations suggested a pattern of police conduct extending well beyond transport restrictions and touching on fundamental issues of civil liberties and the rule of law.
Internet suspension and constitutional questions
Among the petitions heard that morning was a public interest litigation filed by advocate NK Goswami challenging the suspension of digital communication services in Delhi. Goswami's PIL sought disclosure of the original order authorising the internet shutdown and the statutory reasons cited by authorities for the restrictions.
This petition raised constitutional questions about the relationship between public order maintenance and fundamental rights. The suspension of internet services during public protests touches on the right to freedom of expression, the right to information, and the right to communicate, all protected under the Indian Constitution.
The PIL demanded transparency about the decision-making process. By seeking disclosure of the original order and statutory reasons, Goswami's petition implicitly questioned whether the restrictions were proportionate and based on law, or whether they were used as a tool to suppress legitimate political expression.
The Supreme Court's consideration of this plea placed it at the intersection of two competing concerns: the government's responsibility to maintain public order during protests and the constitutional obligation to protect fundamental rights of citizens.
Detentions and release on bail
During the protest period, CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, and Ashutosh Ranka were detained for nearly 24 hours after arriving in Delhi. On the morning of October 11, an Executive Magistrate at Delhi Cantt. Police Station released them on a bail bond of ₹50,000 each, conditional on their maintaining peace and good behaviour for one year.
Their release represented some movement toward normalcy, though the conditions imposed and the duration of their initial detention raised questions about the legal basis for their preventive arrest.
Political engagement with the judiciary
On the same morning, Congress National President Mallikarjun Kharge announced that Congress leadership, including Rahul Gandhi, would meet the Chief Justice of India on October 12, 2026, between 4 PM and 5 PM. Kharge stated they had written letters to this effect and intended to apprise the CJI of their concerns.
This political engagement with the Chief Justice underscored the gravity with which opposition parties viewed the police response to the protests and the detentions of political figures.
What the court signalled
During the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed its intent to restore faith in the institution. This statement suggested the bench recognised the reputational and institutional damage that could result from either the alleged violations of its orders or the broader police conduct being challenged.
The court's decision to hold a special Sunday hearing itself demonstrated the urgency with which it viewed these matters. The hearing brought together multiple strands of concern—contempt of court, violations of fundamental rights, police conduct, and the suspension of digital services—into a single judicial examination.
The factual disputes raised during the hearing, particularly regarding the extent of Metro shutdowns and the justification for internet suspension, would likely require further investigation and evidence. The court would need to determine whether authorities had complied with its October 9 order, whether the detentions were lawful, and whether the internet suspension was justified under law. The October 11 hearing represented a critical moment in the judicial response to the Delhi protests, with the Supreme Court signalling it would not permit violations of its orders or fundamental rights to pass without scrutiny.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.