Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, JJ., took up an urgent hearing on a Sunday, in habeas corpus petitions alleging violation of the Court’s order dated 9 October 2026 concerning restrictions on public transportation in Delhi and of a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal detention of a large number of individuals on 10 October 2026.. The Court noted the allegations regarding metro station closures, disruption of public movement and detention beyond the area covered by the prohibitory order under Section 163, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Finding that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case, the Court issued notice to the alleged contemnors and directed to file counter-affidavit including a compliance report by 13 October 2026. along with a compliance report, by 13 October 2026.
The Court directed that metro and railway services function normally, unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind the reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2) of the Constitution; that internet facilities remain unhindered; and that the movement of people in Delhi be ensured, subject to law-and-order requirements and traffic regulations. The Court also directed that lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharging their professional duties.
The Court directed that “metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally until and unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2)”.
While the Court directed that there shall be no illegal detention, particularly in cases of peaceful, unarmed assembly of people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation, it did not record any findings on contempt or illegal detention in its 11 October 2026 (Sunday) hearing.
Background
Ahead of Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) election protest organised at Jantar Mantar, Joint Commissioner of Police, Transport Range, New Delhi had issued communications dated 8 October 2026 to the Managing Director of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), and a further communication dated 9 October 2026, 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 9 October 2026, continuing on 10 October 2026, until the situation normalised.
The Supreme Court by order dated 9 October 2026, 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 and permitted the competent authorities to reconsideration the prohibitions in favour of regulated operation, having regard to proportionality and public convenience. The Court had also directed the 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.
However, the Court assembled, on 11 October 2026, for an urgent hearing of the applications alleging violation of its order dated 9 October 2026 and the alleged illegal detention of a large number of individuals on 10 October 2026.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners alleged that several metro stations, including GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya, had been closed, railway stations remained shut, traffic advisories had not been issued, and people had been subjected to undue harassment and illegal detention beyond the area covered by the prohibitory order under Section 163 BNSS. It was also alleged that internet services had been suspended, leaving the city with a curfew-like appearance.
The petitioners contended that the present petition concerning illegal detention extended beyond the individuals specifically named and related to the alleged detention of approximately 7000 persons in Delhi. The petitioners further urged for ad interim reliefs with regard to smooth operation of metro rail, traffic, internet services and free movement of people, especially lawyers, journalists and other professionals.
The Solicitor General of India disputed the allegations of violation of the Court’s order dated 9 October 2026 and submitted that the Delhi metro was functioning normally, although 45 of its 303 stations had been closed to maintain law and order. He denied that anyone had been illegally detained and submitted that the persons referred to in the habeas corpus petition had since been released. He further informed the Court that all metro stations had had been open since 10 p.m. the previous night,, train services were functioning normally, and internet connectivity had been restored. Further, he assured that lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be impeded in discharge of their professional duties. The Solicitor General also pointed out that the petitions mentioned orally had not been served on the Union, and sought time in relation to the notice board on Section 163 BNSS.
Observation
The Court had, by order dated 9 October 2026, stated that restrictions on metro and railway services must distinguish between outright prohibition and regulated operation, keeping in view the principle of proportionality. It noted that the authorities had been directed to reconsider the closure of metro stations, publicise their decisions widely, issue fresh traffic advisories, and submit a compliance report.
Upon considering the submissions and the averments in the contempt petition, the Court found that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case and issued notice to the alleged contemnors, directing them to file counter-affidavits along with a compliance report by 13 October 2026. Notice was also issued in the habeas corpus petition. The Court clarified that the personal presence of the alleged contemnors was dispensed with in the meantime.
Directions
Taking note of the submissions made, and pending further consideration, , the Court issued the following directions:
-
Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally unless regulation becomes necessary, keeping in view reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
-
The movement of people within Delhi shall be ensured, subject to law-and-order requirements and traffic regulations. Road barricades must be reviewed forthwith to facilitate free movement, subject to applicable requirements.
-
Internet facilities shall function unhindered.
-
There shall be no illegal detention, particularly in cases of peaceful, unarmed assembly beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation.
-
The authorities shall remove, if not already removed, the notice board stating that Section 163 BNSS had been invoked in and around the Supreme Court premises, so that there would be no apprehension regarding ingress to and egress from the Supreme Court or any other court of law.
-
Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharging their professional duties.
Decision
The Court issued notice in the contempt and habeas corpus proceedings, dispensed with the personal presence of the alleged contemnors in the meantime, and issued the above interim directions.. The matters were listed for further consideration on 13 October 2026, along with the connected petitions and intervention or impleadment applications.
Also Read: CJP Election Protests: Delhi Police closes 57 Metro Stations from 9 October evening to 10 October
[Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan, Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 63801/2026, decided on 11-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Chand Qureshi- 3063, AOR Mr. Shailendra Mani Tripathi In Person, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Pooja Shilpkar, Adv. Mr. Priyendu Raghav Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vishal Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tayyab Khan Salmani, Adv. Mr. Harish Lodhi, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Imran Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Shahid Ali Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv. Ms. Davinder Pal Kaur, Adv. Mr. Mohd Shahzad Ansari, Adv. Mr. Shahzad Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Aarif Ali, Adv. Ms. Anjali Kumari, Adv. Mr. Deepak Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devvrat, Adv. Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Adv. Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, Adv. Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Mr. S. Misra, Adv. Mr. Naman Shrestra, Adv. Mr. Vishal Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Anuj Saxena, AOR Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran, AOR Mr. Anirudh K.P., Adv. Ms. Ashima Mandla, Adv. Ms. Aparajita Jamal, Adv. Mr. Siddharth K., Adv. Mr. Sumedh Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Pahwa, Adv. Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, Adv. Ms. Mandakini Singh, Adv. Mr. Fidal Tom, Adv. Mr. Dhruva Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sunita Majumdar, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Biswas, Adv. Mr. Shah Mohd., Adv. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, Adv. Ms. Chinmayee Chandra, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Venugopal, Adv. Mr. Tushar Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Bijaharini Gopal Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Rishav Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Samriddhi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Thakur, Adv. Ms. Gantavaya Vasisth, Adv. Ms. Nivedita Rani, Adv. Mr. Arpit Malviya, Adv. Ms. Pratistha Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Apar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aditya Dubey, Adv. Mr. Dhandapani M., Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Ms. Rashmi Singh, Adv. Ms. Aparjita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Ujjwal Singh, Adv. Mr. Khalid Ali, Adv. Mr. Nazmeen Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Surit Chaubey, Adv. Ms. Ishtha Singh, Adv. Mr. Avi Singh, Sr. Adv. Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Lavkesh Bhambhani- 4313, AOR Ms. Ritika Meena, Adv. Ms. Spriha Pachauri, Adv. Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Adv. Mr. Anmol Gupta, Adv. Ms. Bhumika Yadav, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devvrat, Adv. Ms. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv. Mr. Aljo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv. Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Adv. Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, Adv. Ms. Reena Pandey, Adv. Mr. Anas Tanwir, AOR Mr. Narendra Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aakansha Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Tanushree Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Ms. Meenu Padha, Adv. Mr. Mohsin Alam, Adv. Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv. Dr. Monika Gusain, Sr. Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Tarun Johri, AOR Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG 3 Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Ms. Pragya Choudhary, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, AOR
For the Applicant(s) in IA/impleader: Mr. Vipin, Adv. Mr. Hemraj Murmu, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR Mr. Sunil Roy, Adv. Ms. Dimple Singh, Adv. Mr. Kaffi Beniwal, Adv. Mr. Praneet Pranav, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Gautam, Adv. Mr. V.C. Shukla, AOR Mr. Lakshya S. Pandey, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Ms. Isha B., Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Alabhya Dhamija, AOR Mr. Vishal Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Tiwary, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Verma, Adv. Mr. Jainendra Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mahima Pandey, Adv. Mr. Surya Pratap Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shrey Ravi Dambhare, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mehra, Adv. Mr. Pavan Narang, Sr. Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, AOR Ms. Ruchita Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sparsh Jain, Adv. Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj, Applicant/intervenor in person Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Adv. Mr. Shoumendu Mukherji, AOR Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Kautilya Birat, Adv. Mr. Tushar Hazrati, Adv. Mr. B.L. Shivhare, Adv. Mr. Shivam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Pathak, Adv. Mr. Vedansh Anand, Adv. Mr. Rahul G. Tanwar, Adv. Mr. Nishant Kumar, AOR Ms. Rachna Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akash Vajpai, AOR
