The Supreme Court examined allegations that its earlier directions had not been complied with, including the closure of Delhi Metro stations, restrictions on public movement and the alleged detention of protesters.
The key ruling is that metro and railway services must function normally unless regulation is necessary, internet services must remain unhindered, and peaceful, unarmed people must not be illegally detained beyond the area covered by Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Supreme Court has directed, amid allegations of mass detentions during Saturday’s protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The court directed the authorities to review road barricades and ensure that lawyers, journalists and other professionals are not obstructed in discharging their duties.
It also reiterated that essential public transport may be regulated but not prohibited outright, observing in its earlier order that “there shall be no outright prohibition on the movement of Metro trains.”
The order was passed by a Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Mrs Justice V. Mohana on a contempt petition filed by Shailendra Mani Tripathi against Govind Mohan and a connected criminal writ petition concerning alleged illegal detention in Delhi.
The matters were heard urgently on October 11 following allegations that the authorities had failed to comply with the court’s October 9 directions.
The Bench also took up related petitions and applications seeking intervention and impleadment.
Read also: Supreme Court Slams Blanket Bans on Delhi Metro and Trains, Says Public Transport Must Be Regulated
During the hearing, senior advocates appearing for the petitioners alleged flagrant violations of the earlier order.
They submitted that metro services had been disrupted, New Delhi Railway Station and Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station had remained closed, and no traffic advisories had been issued.
They further alleged that a large number of people had faced undue harassment and illegal detention, including beyond the area covered by the prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
It was also contended that internet services had been completely shut down, leaving the city with a curfew-like appearance and disrupting transport and the free movement of people and goods.
Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in the listed matters, referred to the pleadings alleging that GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya metro stations, among others, had been completely closed to the public and there has been a deliberate and wilful violation of order.
Read also: सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने हिंदी जन सूचना सेवा आरंभ करने की घोषणा
She submitted that the alleged illegal detention was not confined to the individuals named in the petition but concerned the widespread detention of approximately 7,000 people in Delhi.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Union government, submitted that the petitions mentioned orally had not been served on the Union, making it difficult for them to assist the court on the issues raised.
The Solicitor General denied the allegations of violation of the October 9 order and maintained that the Delhi Metro had been functioning normally, although 45 of its 303 stations had been closed to maintain law and order.
He also denied that anyone had been illegally detained and submitted that the petition had become infructuous because the persons referred to had been released.
The Solicitor General further informed the Bench that all metro stations had been reopened from 10 pm on October 10, train services were operating normally and internet connectivity had been restored.
On the allegation that Section 163 of the BNSS had been imposed in and around the Supreme Court premises, he sought time to obtain instructions.
After considering the submissions, the Bench observed that its October 9 order had directed the authorities to reconsider the notification ordering the closure of 57 metro stations.
Read also: Right to Travel Abroad Cannot Override Fair and Speedy Criminal Trial: Supreme Court
The earlier directions distinguished between a complete prohibition and the regulated operation of public transport, requiring the authorities to take a proportionate approach and publicise their decisions widely.
The authorities had also been directed to issue fresh traffic advisories through newspapers and online platforms and file a compliance report within four days.
Finding a prima facie case in the contempt petition, the Bench issued notice to the alleged contemnors and directed them to file counter-affidavits, along with a compliance report, by October 13.
Notice was also issued in the habeas corpus petition (Diary No. 63858/2026). The court clarified that the personal presence of the alleged contemnors was not required at this stage.
The Bench then issued specific interim directions to protect public movement and access to essential services.
It ordered that metro trains and railway facilities should function normally unless regulation becomes necessary in view of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
Free movement within Delhi must be ensured, subject to law-and-order requirements and traffic regulations, and road barricades must be reviewed immediately.
The court further directed that internet facilities should function without hindrance.
It categorically ordered
“There shall be no illegal detention, particularly in cases of peaceful unarmed assemblage of people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation.”
Taking note of the information that a notice board referring to the invocation of Section 163 had been put up within the Supreme Court premises, the Bench directed the authorities to remove it forthwith, if this had not already been done.
The stated purpose was to prevent any apprehension concerning access to the Supreme Court or any other court of law.
The Bench also recorded the assurance that lawyers, journalists and other professionals would not be obstructed while performing their professional duties and directed that they must not be hindered “in any manner whatsoever.”
The connected matters, along with the applications for intervention and impleadment, have been listed for further consideration on October 13, 2026.
Case: Shailendra Mani Tripathi vs Govind Mohan
Case No.: Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 63801/2026 (Connected with Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 63858/2026)
Date of Order: 11.10.2026
Status: Pending
