Delhi train curbs and restrictions on metro services came under constitutional scrutiny after the Supreme Court asked the government to reconsider the measures and resume services in a regulated manner that does not cause discomfort to commuters. The restrictions, imposed amid a protest in the capital, also affected at least two trains from Mumbai to Delhi and left planned travellers stranded.
The government had decided to curb or cancel trains arriving in Delhi on October 10. The Supreme Court’s direction, reported on Friday, requires the authorities to examine whether services can operate while maintaining public order and managing the impact of the protest.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka said the restrictions could infringe citizens’ fundamental right to move freely across India under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. He said the government would need to establish that the curbs fall within the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(5).
“ The restrictions and cancellation of long distance trains to Delhi and even Metro trains within Delhi will be a violation of fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (d) which is a right of citizens to move freely through out the territory of India, unless the government can justify how such curbs fall within the ambit of reasonable restrictions under clause 5 (limitations on free movement) and as of now they have not justified their action by showing a reliance on any law covered by clause 5,” Justice Oka told The Times of India.
Article 19(5) allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on free movement for specific purposes. These include measures in the interests of the general public, such as controlling epidemics, protecting public health, preventing crime, or regulating traffic and dangerous areas. It also permits restrictions to protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes.
Justice Oka said the government must show how stopping train services is authorised by a law that satisfies the constitutional test. “If it cannot show how, the action falls foul of the Constitutional freedoms,” he said.
Justice VM Kanade, a retired Bombay High Court judge and former Lokayukta of Maharashtra, said the Supreme Court had acted correctly by asking the government to reconsider the restrictions. He said the authorities had to reconcile two constitutional concerns: the right to assemble and protest peacefully, and the need to impose reasonable restrictions to prevent a violation of public order.
Kanade said public order refers to peace, tranquillity and equilibrium across society and involves a higher threshold than a localised law-and-order problem. According to the legal position cited by him, an action affects public order when it disrupts the functioning of the community at large or creates widespread panic. Communal rioting, major mob violence and armed uprisings were cited as examples of situations that could affect public order.
He said the government would need to explain why stopping trains was necessary to prevent such a disruption. Public-order and traffic-management concerns during protests, he added, could potentially be addressed through preventive measures, including restrictions on assemblies of more than five people outside designated protest sites.
The Supreme Court’s direction places the immediate focus on whether Delhi’s metro and rail services can be restored under regulated operating arrangements. The government’s reconsideration of the curbs will determine how services and commuter movement are managed during the protest.
