The Supreme Court has expressed that the petitioners alleging a violation of its directive regarding the complete halt of metro and train services in Delhi during a protest have established a “prima facie” case. During a special hearing held on Sunday, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana reviewed the matter and determined that the alleged actions warranted further examination.

Notices Issued to Key Authorities

The bench directed notices to be sent to several high-ranking officials, including Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and DMRC Chairperson D Thara. The court has requested that these officials submit counter-affidavits along with a compliance report related to its prior order by October 13, 2026. The bench emphasised that the petitioners had presented a sufficient case for consideration, resulting in the issuance of these notices.

In its proceedings, the court indicated that the personal attendance of the alleged contemnors would not be necessary at this stage. The initial petition, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, contended that the response from the authorities represented a “brutal assault on the fundamental rights of citizens” and exhibited a blatant disregard for the Supreme Court’s directives.

According to this plea, the actions undertaken by the Delhi Metro, Delhi Police, and the Union government were described as deliberate and intentional, needing a stringent response. Notably, the contempt petition referenced an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court on October 9, which addressed the closure of 57 metro stations and cancellation of train services due to the protest.

Details of the Protest and Court Orders

The context of the protest involves a call issued by the Cockroach Janta Party and various student organisations, which was directed at Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The protest was initiated over alleged irregularities in the functioning of the Election Commission. In response to this situation, the Supreme Court had specifically instructed the Centre to ensure that metro and train services were not entirely halted during the protests set for October 10.

The judicial bench reasoning included a declaration that while law-enforcement agencies are empowered to manage unruly crowds, it is also crucial that citizens are not subjected to undue inconvenience. This statement indicates the balancing act the court is attempting to maintain between public order and individual rights.

The contempt petition alleged that in spite of the Supreme Court’s explicit directives, authorities had engaged in what was described as a “conscious maintenance” of a blanket shutdown across transit routes. It pointed out that there were ongoing unapproved cancellations of train services and a failure to provide clear traffic and transport advisories to the public.

Delhi Metro’s Recent Actions and Implications

In relation to the protest, it was reported that the Delhi Metro had temporarily closed 45 stations from 9 pm on Friday until 6 pm on Saturday for security considerations. This decision has raised questions about adherence to the Supreme Court’s earlier directives.

The core issue now revolves around whether the authorities acted in compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate to prevent a complete suspension of metro and train services amidst the protests. The court’s request for responses and compliance reports underscores the ongoing scrutiny of the situation.

As this case unfolds, the Supreme Court continues to seek accountability from relevant parties, reflecting a commitment to uphold citizens’ rights while ensuring public order is maintained during times of civic unrest.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share