A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), alleging that several metro stations remained closed despite the court’s directions against a complete suspension of services. Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, who filed the plea, has argued that the continued closure of station gates amounts to wilful disobedience of the court’s order. He has also indicated that video footage from GTB Nagar metro station will be submitted as evidence to support the allegations. The Supreme Court has yet to adjudicate the claims made in the petition.

The dispute comes amid security restrictions imposed in Delhi ahead of a protest called by the Cockroach Janata Party against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar at Jantar Mantar on October 10. Authorities had initially planned to close 57 metro stations but later reduced the number to 45. However, according to the petition, restrictions on access continued at several stations despite the revised arrangements. The petitioner has questioned whether these measures complied with the Supreme Court’s directions, particularly its emphasis on avoiding a complete shutdown of public transport.

The contempt plea follows a Supreme Court hearing on October 9, when a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana considered the proposed restrictions. The bench cautioned authorities against imposing sweeping measures that could disrupt essential transport services. It directed the administration to regulate metro operations in a manner that addressed security concerns while minimising inconvenience to commuters. The court emphasised that a complete suspension of services should not be imposed when more limited restrictions could achieve the intended security objectives.

Also Read: SC Directs Authorities To Prevent Disruption Of Delhi Metro And Rail Services Before CJP Protest

During the hearing, the bench observed that authorities should not use a sledgehammer to kill a fly, underlining the need for proportionate security arrangements. It acknowledged that the administration had the authority to regulate public movement and transport when necessary for public safety. However, the judges also highlighted the potential hardship that a blanket shutdown could cause to ordinary commuters, students and working people. The court asked the government and administration to consider alternative arrangements that would maintain public transport access while addressing the security situation surrounding the planned demonstration.

In his petition, Tripathi has alleged that keeping metro station gates closed despite the court’s directions effectively denied commuters access to services. He has argued that continuing such restrictions after the hearing could amount to deliberate non-compliance with the judicial order. The proposed video footage from GTB Nagar station is intended to support his account of the situation on the ground. However, the allegations remain claims made by the petitioner and have not been established through a judicial finding. The filing of the plea does not itself determine whether DMRC or any other authority violated the court’s directions.

The case raises questions about how security restrictions on public transport should be implemented during large public gatherings and how authorities must comply with judicial directions. The Supreme Court’s earlier observations called for a balance between security requirements and the public’s need for uninterrupted access to essential services. The contempt petition now challenges whether the restrictions imposed at individual stations remained within those limits. Any determination of wilful disobedience will depend on the court’s examination of the order, the measures taken by the authorities and the evidence presented by the petitioner.

Also Read: Supreme Court Declines To Revive Disqualification Proceedings Against AIADMK Lawmakers in Tamil Nadu