The Supreme Court has directed Delhi authorities to ease restrictions imposed around the capital during the Cockroach Janata Party protest, including unnecessary barricading, disruptions to public movement and interruptions to metro and internet services, according to proceedings reported by Live Hindustan.
A bench of Justices Joymaly Bagchi and V. Mohana was hearing petitions related to police action during the October 10 protest, the detention of demonstrators and alleged non-compliance with earlier court directions. The proceedings also included a contempt petition concerning restrictions imposed around Jantar Mantar, the Supreme Court and adjoining areas.
The court said barricades should be removed from locations where they were not essential and observed that the entire city could not be closed off through extensive barricading. The directions were reported to include restoring normal metro operations, ensuring uninterrupted public movement and avoiding internet shutdowns unless such a step was strictly necessary. The court also said lawyers should be allowed to carry out their professional work, while noting that implementation would remain subject to the law-and-order situation.
The reported directions came after restrictions affected several parts of central Delhi. Police had imposed prohibitory measures under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the provision that replaced the earlier Section 144 framework. Security was reported to remain tight around Jantar Mantar and Lutyens’ Delhi, with demonstrators attempting to reach Jantar Mantar and Connaught Place in small groups.
Live Hindustan reported that several people were detained near Connaught Place and that police and protesters faced off at some locations. The report also said Delhi Police had registered more than 20 first information reports in connection with alleged unauthorised demonstrations, obstruction of government work, unlawful assembly, attacks or physical confrontation involving police personnel and damage to public property. These allegations remain subject to investigation and legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court proceedings followed complaints from lawyers about access restrictions around the court. Devvrat, president of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, said the association had filed a writ petition after lawyers were allegedly mistreated and confronted with barricades. He also alleged that lawyers had not been informed about the imposition of Section 163 and that internet services were disrupted despite a scheduled virtual hearing.
Senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Shahdan Farasat and N. Hariharan, raised concerns during the hearing about the detention and treatment of demonstrators. The report said lawyers alleged that people were picked up from trains and that some protesters were dragged into buses. These claims were presented during the hearing and were not independently verified in the supplied report.
An executive magistrate’s court separately released CJP leaders Abhijeet Dipke, Ashutosh Ranka and Saurav Das. Their lawyers said the three were released on personal bonds of Rs 50,000 each with one surety and without additional conditions. The police position, as reported, was that the bond was intended to ensure that the leaders maintained peace for one year.
The immediate administrative question is how Delhi authorities will balance crowd-control measures with access to transport, courts, workplaces and public spaces. The Supreme Court’s reported directions place the focus on limiting restrictions to locations and situations where authorities can establish a clear law-and-order need. The next steps will depend on how the police and civil administration implement the directions across metro stations, roads and areas surrounding the court and protest sites.
