Supreme Court plea challenges proposed Delhi Metro shutdown before protest

A plea in the Supreme Court challenged the proposed closure of Delhi metro stations and trains before the October 10 protest. Lawyers said the curbs would lock down the city and curb citizens' right to protest.

In Short

• A Supreme Court plea challenged proposed metro closures before October 10 protests
• Lawyers argued the curbs would effectively lock down large parts of Delhi
• The bench said protests without permission were unlawful but not unconstitutional

A plea was filed in the Supreme Court on Friday against the proposed closure of metro stations and cancellation of trains to Delhi on October 10, ahead of a protest call by the CJP and some student organisations against the CEC.

The court was told that the restrictions would amount to a lockdown of the city and would affect citizens' fundamental right to protest. Lawyers appearing in the matter also said large parts of Delhi were being barricaded.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was told by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for CPI(M) general secretary M A Baby, that "the entire Delhi has been directed to be locked down". He said that, according to their information, there was an order for the closure of 57 metro stations and the cancellation of trains coming to Delhi.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi and advocate Prashant Bhushan joined Sibal and urged the apex court to take note of the proposed closure of metro stations, saying the entire Delhi was being barricaded. The lawyers said the entire city could not be shut down because police apprehended something and were unable to maintain law and order.

Justice Bagchi said that if the protest organisers were before the court, they could be asked how many people were expected, they should be unarmed, and the authorities could be directed to regulate the protest. The bench said, "If the protest is without permission, then it is not in accordance with law," while pointing out that it was not unconstitutional. Justice Bagchi also said that for any restraining order, the court would need to hear all parties and balance the equities.

Sibal, Singhvi, Bhushan and senior advocates Vrinda Grover and Gopal Sankaranarayanan said they would return at 2 pm with a proper petition against the closure of stations, roads and barricading, as the matter centred on restrictions proposed in Delhi ahead of the October 10 protest.

- Ends