The Supreme Court of India held a special hearing on October 11, 2026, to examine whether authorities had complied with its October 9 order prohibiting a blanket shutdown of public transport during ongoing protests in Delhi. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench led by Justice Joymalya Bagchi that Delhi Metro had run 271 trains on October 10 with "zero reduction," adhering to the standard Saturday schedule. The submission came in direct response to a contempt petition alleging that government authorities had violated the court's interim directive.
The special Sunday sitting, convened at 10:30 AM with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana on the bench, addressed multiple petitions arising from the Cockroach Janta Party's demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. At issue was whether the Delhi Police and the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation had imposed a complete transport shutdown in violation of the October 9 order. Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi filed the contempt petition naming the Union Home Secretary, Delhi Police Commissioner, and DMRC Chairperson as respondents.
Petitioners alleged that 45 Metro stations remained closed and train services were cancelled on October 10, despite the court's directive. The Solicitor General's submission of specific operational data—271 trains running on a Saturday schedule—was presented as evidence that no material reduction had occurred and that the court's order had been honoured.
Detention and Police Conduct Challenged
The bench heard arguments from senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Shadan Farasat, who raised concerns about police conduct during the protests. Sibal flagged instances of detention beyond restricted zones, while Farasat alleged assault and detention of individuals. The arguments extended beyond the Metro services issue to encompass wider questions about police powers during public demonstrations and the limits of preventive detention.
Parallel to the contempt petition, the court also heard a habeas corpus petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Menaka Guruswamy challenging what she characterised as indiscriminate detentions by Delhi Police. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association moved the court under Article 32, challenging police actions against lawyers, including allegations of manhandling and injuries during the demonstrations.
Additional concerns were raised regarding digital communication restrictions. Advocate NK Goswami filed a public interest litigation challenging the suspension of digital communication services in Delhi, seeking disclosure of the original order and the reasons cited for the suspension.
Precision Required for Compliance
The October 11 hearing reflected the Supreme Court's active role in monitoring compliance with its interim orders during periods of civil unrest. By requiring the Solicitor General to present detailed operational data, the bench demonstrated its expectation that government submissions would be precise and verifiable. The court's approach signalled that general assertions of compliance would not suffice; concrete figures and schedules would be scrutinised.
The timing of the special Sunday sitting itself underscored the urgency the court attached to the matter. Weekend sittings are rare and reserved for cases of exceptional public importance. The decision to convene on a Sunday indicated the bench's view that the issues at hand—compliance with court orders, alleged illegal detentions, and restrictions on fundamental rights—required immediate judicial attention.
The Solicitor General's specific reference to 271 trains and adherence to Saturday scheduling was notable for its precision. If accepted by the court, this data would substantially undermine the contempt allegations. However, the presentation of such figures also invited further scrutiny: whether 271 trains represented normal capacity, whether all 45 stations mentioned in the petition had actually reopened, and whether the Saturday schedule was appropriate for a Friday when the order was allegedly violated.
Political Backdrop and Bail Releases
CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das, and Ashutosh Ranka, who had been detained for nearly 24 hours after arriving in Delhi, were released on the morning of October 11 on bail bonds of ₹50,000 each. Their release was conditioned on maintaining peace and good behaviour for one year. 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 to apprise the CJI of their concerns regarding the detentions and police conduct.
The October 9 order itself had been issued against the backdrop of escalating tensions during the protests. The court's directive to prevent a complete transport shutdown was an attempt to balance the right to protest with the right of ordinary citizens to access essential services. By October 10, the question of whether that balance had been maintained became the subject of contempt allegations.
The court's statement that it intended to "restore faith in the institution" signalled its determination to ensure that judicial orders were followed and that police powers were exercised within constitutional bounds. This language suggested the bench was concerned not merely with the specific facts of the Metro services but with the broader principle of institutional credibility.
The hearing brought together questions of administrative compliance, police conduct during protests, detention powers, and digital rights. The Solicitor General's submission on Metro services addressed only one dimension of the larger concerns raised by petitioners. The court's willingness to hear arguments on detention, assault of advocates, and communication restrictions indicated it was treating the October 9 order as part of a larger framework for protecting rights during public demonstrations.
As the proceedings concluded, the bench had before it the Solicitor General's assertion of zero reduction in Metro services, competing allegations from petitioners about station closures and service cancellations, and a range of additional grievances concerning police conduct. The court's next steps would likely involve verification of the operational data submitted, examination of whether the alleged station closures had occurred, and assessment of whether police actions during the protests had exceeded lawful authority.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.