SC rejects blanket ban on Delhi Metro ahead of CJP protest, allows regulated movement

The Supreme Court questioned Delhi Police's decision to shut 57 Metro stations during the CJP rally on Saturday, warning that it would affect citizens' rights. The Centre said it would consider an alternative protest site to Jantar Mantar, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the court that Metro services would be allowed to operate in a regulated manner.

In Short

• Court stresses balancing protest rights with citizens' access to services
• Solicitor General agrees to regulated metro operations, not total ban
• Lawyers challenge police restrictions as excessive and disruptive

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed serious reservations about Delhi Police's decision to direct the Delhi Metro to shut down 57 stations on Saturday, when the CJP is scheduled to hold a rally in the national capital demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The court observed that the move would affect the rights of citizens entitled to use the services.

"In terms of that assurance, we make it clear that there shall be no complete prohibition on the movement of Metro trains. We direct that due publicity be given to the considered decision taken by the authorities regarding the movement of Metro trains and other railway services in a suitably regulated manner, so that inconvenience to the public at large is minimised. Such a decision shall be given wide publicity to avoid further inconvenience to commuters," the Court ordered, as reported by Bar and Bench.

The court also asked the authorities in the national capital to issue a traffic advisory for people travelling by road.

After Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the Centre would consider designating a site other than Jantar Mantar for the protest, the bench asked the government to take an appropriate decision regarding the matter.

Responding to the Supreme Court's observation that regulation cannot amount to a complete prohibition, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the bench that he would ask the authorities to allow Metro services to operate in a regulated manner.

Earlier in the hearing, the top court said a balance must be struck between the right to protest and the rights of other citizens.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant heard submissions by a battery of senior lawyers, including Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Prashant Bhushan and Vrinda Grover, who questioned the sweeping restrictions imposed by the police ahead of Saturday's protest.

The lawyers flagged concerns over Metro station closures, train cancellations, restrictions on movement and directions to resident welfare associations (RWAs) and hotels that could prevent people from gathering or travelling to Delhi.

Sibal questioned how such restrictions could be imposed across the national capital, while Singhvi argued that preventive measures of this scale could not be justified when no incident had occurred.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, defended the measures, saying they were intended to ensure that law and order was maintained.

The bench said the restrictions raised concerns over the rights of ordinary citizens and stressed the need to balance the right to protest with public access to essential facilities.

"We need to balance the rights of citizens who want to protest and the right of the larger citizenry to access basic facilities," Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, adding that the police action appeared disproportionate based on the material placed before the court.

COURT QUESTIONS BLANKET RESTRICTIONS

During the hearing, the lawyers argued that the restrictions went beyond what was necessary to regulate a protest. They cited train cancellations, metro closures, checks at Delhi's borders and instructions to hotels not to accept fresh bookings.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued that the closure of metro stations and cancellation of trains would affect millions of commuters, not just those intending to participate in the protest. He said citizens had a right to freedom of movement and access to public transport.

The lawyers also raised concerns over police advisories asking people not to venture out or gather in public spaces. The Chief Justice questioned whether claims about police visits to hotels and paying guest accommodations had been placed on record.

Justice Bagchi said the court could consider curbing restrictions on transport but needed to understand the situation on the ground and the likely scale of the protest before deciding how to regulate it.

The bench also asked whether the organisers had sought police permission and questioned why the protest had to take place on Saturday rather than another day.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing in connection with the CJP protest, told the court that two representations seeking permission had been rejected. She said the protest had been announced well in advance and that the organisers had sought a designated space.

The lawyers also informed the court that the Indian Youth Congress had separately approached the Delhi High Court, which had indicated that it would hear the matter on Monday.

SC CALLS FOR BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHTS

The Supreme Court emphasised that citizens have a fundamental right to protest, but said the exercise of that right must be regulated within the framework of the law.

The bench indicated that restrictions could be tailored, including by limiting the number of protesters and ensuring that they remained unarmed. It also made clear that highways could not be blocked.

The court asked the petitioners to produce the actual police order imposing the restrictions before it could assess the legality and extent of the measures.

Sibal said the lawyers would return at 2 pm with documents relating to the permissions sought for the protest and the responses received from the authorities.

The bench said it needed to examine the police order and the equipment placed before it to determine how the right to protest could be protected without unduly affecting the movement and daily lives of other citizens.

- Ends