SC issues contempt notice to Centre, Delhi Police chief over violating its directions on railway curbs

The contempt petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi alleged that the authorities had continued with the closure of several Metro stations in the Capital in violation of the top court’s October 9 directions.

Tripathi alleged that the continued restrictions severely “crippled public life” in the Capital and caused hardship to commuters. He has sought initiation of contempt proceedings against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and DMRC Chairperson D Thara for alleged wilful disobedience of the top court‘s directions.

Noting that the government cannot bring everything to a halt to deal with the CJP protest against the CEC, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant had on Friday directed the Centre to ensure that there was no “complete prohibition” of the movement of Metro and trains coming to Delhi.

It asked the Centre to take appropriate decisions in “a suitably regulated manner” to ensure that “inconvenience to the public at large is minimised”.

The Bench had expressed serious concerns over the closure of entry and exit gates at several Delhi Metro stations and the cancellation of trains. “One should not use a hammer to kill a fly,” it had said.

Though law enforcement agencies had the right to take steps to restrict unruly movement, citizens should not be unduly harassed, the top court had said.

“It appears that the notifications are overreaching, as they impose a complete ban upon essential public transportation. Upon our indication that a distinction exists between total ‘prohibition’ and the ‘regulation’ of Metro and other train movements, the Solicitor General has fairly agreed to impress upon the authorities to reassess such prohibitions,” the Bench had noted in its order.

“Regarding that assurance, we clarify that although there shall be no outright prohibition on the movement of Metro, a prudent decision may be made to permit the operation of rail services in a suitable and regulated manner,” the Bench had said.

It had said such a decision should be widely publicised to prevent further inconvenience.