Supreme Court: In the midst of hearing the day’s matters (M A Baby v. Union of India), a 3-Judge Bench of Surya Kant, CJ., Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, JJ., took up an oral mentioning made at about 1:00 p.m. by senior counsel and other counsel, who pointed out communications directing the cessation or cancellation of Metro trains and Mail/Express trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Stations, in view of anticipated crowd movement towards Jantar Mantar. The Court observed that the notifications appeared to be “overreaching” as they impose a complete ban upon essential public transportation. Accordingly, the Court recorded the Solicitor General’s agreement to impress upon the authorities to reassess the prohibitions in favour of regulated operation, having regard to proportionality and public convenience. The Court further directed the competent authorities to consider suitable sites with basic amenities for peaceful and lawful protests and to report compliance within 4 days.
The Court observed that,
“Although there shall be no outright prohibition on the movement of Metro trains, a prudent decision may be made to permit the operation of Metro trains and other rail services in a suitable and regulated manner. Such a decision should be widely publicised to prevent further inconvenience.”
Also Read: CJP Election Protests: Delhi Police closes 57 Metro Stations from 9 October evening to 10 October
Brief Facts
The instant matter deals with communications dated October 8, 2026, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Transport Range, New Delhi, to the Managing Director of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), and a further communication dated October 9, 2026, reportedly issued to all zonal railways. The impugned directions provided for the cessation or cancellation of Metro trains and Mail/Express trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Stations. They also contemplated reduced Metro frequency across 57 stations and closure of entry and exit gates from 9:00 p.m. on October 9, 2026, continuing on October 10, 2026, until the situation normalised.
The Court also took note of an order dated August 23, 2026, purportedly issued under Section 70, Delhi Police Act, 1978, and Section 163, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Noting that the orders referred to proposed protesters at Jantar Mantar, the Court had permitted the protest organisers to approach it through urgent petitions and indicated its willingness to hear the matter. The senior counsel who objected to the cessation of Metro and railway services clarified that they did not represent the proposed protesters or the organisers, and that no petition had been filed on their behalf.
Issue for Determination
Whether the absolute prohibition on the movement of Metro trains and trains from New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Stations warranted reconsideration?
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the impugned notifications appeared to be “overreaching”, as they imposed a complete ban on essential public transportation.
Emphasising the distinction between a total prohibition and the regulation of train movements, the Court recorded the assurance of the Solicitor General of India that the authorities would be impressed upon to reassess the prohibitions and permit Metro and other railway services to operate in a regulated manner, consistently with the principles of proportionality and without causing inconvenience to Delhi’s residents and the general public.
Clarifying the assurance, the Court stated that there would be no outright prohibition on the movement of Metro trains, while permitting the authorities to take a prudent decision regarding the regulated operation of Metro and other railway services. Such a decision was directed to be widely publicised.
The Court further directed publication of a traffic advisory in newspapers and on online platforms to facilitate the smooth movement of vehicles and prevent hardship or inconvenience to the public.
The Court also noted the suggestion, accepted by the Senior Counsel and counsel appearing in the matter, that suitable alternative sites equipped with basic amenities should be identified for persons engaged in peaceful and lawful protest. It directed the competent authority to consider the suggestion and take an appropriate decision.
Accordingly, the Court directed the DMRC, the requisite railway authorities and Delhi Police (Traffic) to file a compliance report within 4 days.
Also Read: What the Supreme Court Actually Directed on NEET Paper Leak Protest Violence
[M A Baby v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 63560/2026, order dated 9-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R., AOR Mr. Anirudh K.P., Adv. Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. Fidal Tom, Adv. Ms. Akriti Chaubey, AOR Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shourya Das Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vishal Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Sanjiv Misra, Adv. Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Adv.
