The Supreme Court has directed Delhi Police to remove barricades from places where they are not essential, while asking authorities to restore normal movement and services during protests linked to the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The directions came during a hearing on police action, detentions and restrictions imposed in Delhi after demonstrations on October 10.
A bench of Justices Joymallya Bagchi and V. Mohana heard petitions concerning the detention of protesters, the use of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), internet restrictions and alleged obstruction of movement around the Supreme Court and central Delhi. The court also heard a contempt petition alleging deliberate disobedience of its directions.
According to the report, the court told Delhi Police that barricading could not be used across the city to prevent people from moving around. It indicated that metro services should operate normally, internet services should be restored and road and railway movement should not be disrupted unless restrictions were necessary for law and order. The directions were also stated to be subject to the prevailing security situation.
The proceedings followed a security clampdown around Jantar Mantar, Connaught Place, Lutyens’ Delhi and the Supreme Court. The report said Section 163 was in force in parts of the city, while people attempting to reach protest locations in small groups were being detained and taken away in buses. Demonstrators and police were also reported to have clashed at some locations.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) told the court that it had filed a writ petition after lawyers allegedly faced mistreatment near the court on the previous day. SCAORA president and advocate Devvrat said lawyers had not been adequately informed about the restrictions and alleged that internet access was shut even after lawyers were told that the hearing would be conducted virtually. The association welcomed the court’s intervention.
Senior advocates appearing in the matter also challenged the manner in which protesters were detained. Kapil Sibal questioned the detention of people travelling by trains and raised the issue of internet shutdowns, referring to the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in the Anuradha Bhasin case. Shadan Farasat alleged that some protesters were dragged into buses, while N. Hariharan said citizens’ ability to move through the city had been curtailed.
The disruption has affected more than protest sites. CJP leader Saurav Das claimed that 57 metro stations had been closed, trains from other states had been stopped and some Rajdhani Express services cancelled. These claims were made at a press conference and were not independently confirmed in the supplied report. Das also alleged that 30,000 to 40,000 security personnel had been brought to Delhi, including personnel from border and conflict-affected regions.
Separately, an Executive Magistrate court released CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das on personal bonds of Rs 50,000 each. The report said the court imposed no additional conditions, while police described the bond as intended to ensure that the three remained peaceful for one year. Delhi Police has registered more than 20 FIRs over alleged unauthorised protests, obstruction of government work, assault or pushing of police personnel and damage to public property.
The immediate next step is implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions on barricades, public transport, internet access and movement, while authorities continue to assess security conditions around protest locations and government institutions.
