Supreme Court Issues Contempt Notices Over Metro Restrictions and Detentions During Delhi Protests

The Supreme Court of India issued contempt notices to several senior government officials, including Delhi's police commissioner, on October 11, 2026. The notices alleged violations of an October 9 order that had restricted metro and railway closures during protests in the national capital. A Division Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard habeas corpus petitions that day, examining claims of unlawful detentions and breaches of the Court's directives.

The October 9 order had directed authorities to reconsider metro closures and ensure that any restrictions on public transportation remained proportionate rather than constituting an outright prohibition. The Court had required authorities to justify such measures on grounds of public order, publicize their decisions widely, issue fresh traffic advisories, and submit compliance reports.

Petitioners alleged that on October 10, authorities closed metro stations and disrupted railway services in violation of these directions. They also claimed that individuals were detained beyond the scope of prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The bench noted allegations of metro station closures, widespread disruption of public movement, and detentions that appeared to exceed what the law permitted.

Government's Selective Closure Defence

The Solicitor General, appearing for the Centre, disputed the violation allegations. He stated that 45 of 303 metro stations were closed for law and order purposes, characterizing the closures as selective rather than comprehensive. He also indicated that detained individuals had been released, suggesting the government viewed the detention issue as substantially resolved.

The bench's decision to issue contempt notices nonetheless signals that the Court found the government's explanation insufficient. Contempt notices represent a serious enforcement mechanism deployed when a court believes its orders have been deliberately or recklessly disregarded. The notices against high-ranking officials demonstrate the Court's resolve to enforce its directions and protect citizens' rights during civil unrest.

The October 10 Protests

Demonstrators on October 10 demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The scale of agitation prompted authorities to impose restrictions on public movement and services, citing law and order concerns. The Supreme Court's October 9 order attempted to balance the government's legitimate interest in maintaining public order with citizens' constitutional rights to move freely and access essential services.

The Court had directed that no person be detained except in accordance with law, that metro and railway services operate normally, and that internet services remain uninterrupted. These directions reflected the Court's view that fundamental rights and access to public services cannot be arbitrarily suspended, even during protests.

Adjournment and Response Deadline

On October 13, 2026, the Supreme Court adjourned the hearing to October 15 due to Justice V. Mohana's indisposition. The Solicitor General requested an extension to file a response affidavit to the contempt plea, stating the document required further refinement. The Court accepted this submission without opposition from other counsel and granted the Centre additional time to respond to non-compliance allegations.

Lawyers' Access to Courts Disrupted

The protests and restrictions created significant difficulties for the legal community. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) filed a petition highlighting hardships faced by lawyers, including internet service restrictions and alleged obstructions to their movement. SCBA president Pradeep Rai submitted that lawyers faced impediments in reaching court and accessing essential services.

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant acknowledged that democratic activities should proceed smoothly but emphasized that the functioning of the Supreme Court and the movement of lawyers, court staff, and litigants must not be obstructed. The bench agreed to hear SCBA petitions and took note of complaints regarding alleged excessive force against lawyers en route to protest sites.

On October 12, 2026, the Supreme Court directed the Delhi Police to conduct a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of assault on lawyers during the demonstrations. This directive underscored the Court's serious approach to allegations of misconduct by law enforcement against members of the legal profession.

Constitutional Limits on Restrictions

The Court's intervention reflects established constitutional principles governing restrictions on fundamental rights. Article 19(2) of the Constitution permits reasonable restrictions on the right to move freely, but only when necessary for public order. The October 9 order attempted to ensure that any restrictions imposed remained within this constitutional framework and did not become blanket prohibitions.

The distinction between selective closure of 45 metro stations and a complete shutdown carries legal weight. A selective approach may be more readily justified as proportionate to the threat posed, whereas a comprehensive closure might exceed what is necessary for public order. The Court's subsequent issuance of contempt notices suggests that even the selective closures may have been implemented inconsistently with the Court's directions or that authorities imposed additional restrictions beyond what the order permitted.