Delhi Protest Restrictions: Supreme Court Plea Targets Metro Closures And Train Cancellations

A plea was filed in the Supreme Court on Friday challenging proposed restrictions on public transport in the national capital, including the closure of 57 metro stations and cancellation of trains ahead of a planned protest by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) and student organisations. The demonstration was called to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petitioners argued that the proposed measures would severely restrict citizens’ ability to travel and exercise their fundamental right to peaceful protest. The matter was raised before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary M A Baby, told the court that the national capital was effectively being locked down despite citizens having a constitutional right to demonstrate.

The challenge focused on the scale of the proposed restrictions and their potential impact on residents who depend on public transport for their daily commute. Other senior lawyers, including Abhishek Singhvi, Vrinda Grover and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, along with advocate Prashant Bhushan, also urged the Supreme Court to intervene. They argued that the city could not be shut down merely because the police anticipated a possible law-and-order problem. Their submissions raised questions about whether restrictions affecting large parts of Delhi were necessary and proportionate to the anticipated risks associated with the gathering. The lawyers sought judicial intervention against the proposed closure of metro stations, road restrictions and barricading across the capital.

During the proceedings, Justice Bagchi indicated that the court could consider regulating the demonstration if its organisers appeared before the bench and provided details about the expected turnout. He suggested that arrangements could be made to ensure the protest remained orderly, including requiring participants to remain unarmed and directing the authorities to maintain appropriate security. The observations pointed towards the possibility of managing the gathering through specific conditions rather than relying exclusively on broad restrictions that could affect the movement of the public. The bench also addressed the legal requirements governing public demonstrations. It observed that holding a protest without the necessary permission would not be in accordance with the law, while distinguishing that issue from the constitutional status of the right to protest.

Also Read: Delhi Prepares For October 10 CJP Rally With Transport Disruptions And Liquor Sales Restrictions

Justice Bagchi said the court would need to hear all sides and balance the competing interests before issuing any restraining order. The observations indicated that the legal question involved both the organisers’ responsibility to comply with applicable rules and the authorities’ duty to maintain public order without imposing unjustified restrictions. The lawyers informed the court that they would return at 2 pm with a formal petition challenging the proposed restrictions. The challenge was expected to address the planned closure of 57 metro stations, train cancellations, road restrictions and barricading across Delhi. The petitioners sought the court’s intervention before the measures could substantially affect commuters and participants travelling to the demonstration.

The hearing brought the competing concerns over public convenience, security arrangements and the exercise of democratic rights before the Supreme Court. The dispute highlights the challenges of managing large public demonstrations in a densely populated capital where public transport is essential to millions of residents. Authorities may impose security measures to prevent violence, manage crowds and protect critical infrastructure, but the scope of those measures can become a legal issue when they significantly affect ordinary movement. The Supreme Court’s observations underscored the need to consider the circumstances of the planned protest, the expected turnout and the available options for maintaining order. Any further directions would depend on the formal petition and the court’s assessment after hearing the relevant parties.

Also Read: CISF Jawan Reunites Child With Parents at Delhi Metro Station