Supreme Court Directs Restoration of Normal Metro Services and Free Movement in Delhi

Supreme Court Restores Delhi Metro Services and Free Movement Amid Protest Detentions Row

The Supreme Court has directed authorities to restore normal metro and rail services across all Delhi stations and guarantee free movement of people and traffic throughout the city, subject only to public order conditions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution and standard traffic regulations. The order came on October 15, 2026, following allegations of mass detentions, transport restrictions, and police excesses during protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar that took place on October 10, 11, and 12, 2026.

The Court's directions also mandated that internet facilities remain undisturbed across the city and that advocates, journalists, and professionals not be impeded from discharging their duties. Authorities were further ordered to conduct a review of barricades that had been erected during the period of unrest.

The orders emerged from a flurry of legal action triggered by the protests. At least 15 petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court by individuals detained during the demonstrations, with petitioners alleging illegal detention, physical assault, and manhandling by police. The Lawyers Association for Constitution and the Network of Women in Media also filed separate petitions raising concerns about police action against protesters who were opposing the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision exercise of electoral rolls and demanding the Chief Election Commissioner's resignation.

Habeas Corpus Petitions Continue Despite Releases

On October 11, 2026, during an extraordinary Sunday sitting, the Supreme Court issued notice on habeas corpus petitions filed after the mass detentions. The Solicitor General submitted that many of the named persons had since been released, rendering the petitions infructuous. However, the Bench issued notice on the petitions nonetheless, indicating the Court's determination to examine the circumstances of detention and police conduct even after the immediate release of detainees.

The petitioners are seeking an independent inquiry into police action, preservation of CCTV footage and bodycam recordings, and the return of seized belongings. These demands reflect concerns about the conduct of law enforcement during the protests and the need for accountability.

Jantar Mantar De-notification Challenged

In a related development, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central government while hearing batch petitions concerning the Special Intensive Revision demonstrations. The notice was issued in response to a challenge to the Ministry of Home Affairs' standing order denotifying Jantar Mantar as an authorized protest venue. Petitioner counsel demanded immediate quashing of the order, arguing that it violates constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.

The Delhi Police had informed the Delhi High Court on October 13, 2026, that the decision to de-notify Jantar Mantar followed a Supreme Court order dated October 9, 2026. Police stated that three alternative protest locations had been identified to accommodate demonstrators.

Press Freedom and Journalist Protection

The Supreme Court has also extended protection from arrest to independent journalist Abhishek Upadhyay in connection with a road rage case and multiple First Information Reports. On October 14, 2026, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed that Upadhyay should not be arrested until further notice. This order made absolute previous interim orders issued on August 25 and September 7, which had stayed his arrest and mandated his cooperation with investigation.

Upadhyay had approached the Supreme Court challenging an FIR lodged by Ghaziabad Police following his investigative reports concerning alleged misappropriation of donations at the Ayodhya Ram Temple. The Court also stayed a police notice requiring him to surrender his digital devices. This protection reflects the Court's recognition of journalism's critical role in a democracy and the need to safeguard journalists from harassment through the criminal justice system.

Constitutional Framework for Restrictions

The Supreme Court's orders granting free movement and normal services are subject to public order conditions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This provision permits reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to freedom of movement on grounds of public order. The Court's formulation preserves the state's legitimate interest in maintaining order while reinstating the default position that citizens and services must operate freely absent specific, justified restrictions.

The directive that internet facilities remain undisturbed is particularly significant given the pattern of internet shutdowns during civil unrest in India. The Court's explicit protection of digital connectivity recognises both the practical necessity of internet access in modern urban life and its importance for communication, commerce, and access to information.

Scope of Police Action Under Scrutiny

The allegations in the filed petitions paint a detailed picture of the alleged police response. Petitioners claim illegal detention, physical assault, and manhandling, including of women and journalists. The involvement of media organizations in filing petitions indicates that press freedom was directly impacted during the police operations. The demand for preservation of CCTV footage and bodycam recordings suggests that petitioners believe video evidence exists that would substantiate their claims.

The fact that the Supreme Court has issued notice on habeas corpus petitions despite the release of detainees indicates that the Court views the matter as raising questions beyond the immediate liberty of individual detainees. The underlying conduct of police, the proportionality of any detention, and the procedural regularity of arrests all remain live issues before the Court.