Supreme Court Directs Normal Metro, Rail Services and Uninterrupted Internet in Delhi

The Supreme Court on Sunday directed authorities to ensure the normal functioning of Metro and railway services, uninterrupted internet connectivity and free movement of people in Delhi, while making it clear that lawyers must not be obstructed from discharging their professional duties.

A Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued the directions while hearing a batch of contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s October 9 order concerning Metro and railway operations ahead of a proposed protest against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar.

The court directed that Metro and railway services should operate normally unless restrictions become necessary due to a public order situation. It also ordered that people be allowed to move freely across the national capital, subject to traffic regulations, and that the need for barricades be reviewed immediately in light of law-and-order and traffic conditions.

Taking note of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s submissions that Metro services had been normalised and internet connectivity restored, the Bench recorded the assurance that these facilities would continue to function normally.

The court further directed that internet services remain undisturbed, while clarifying that its order did not curtail the authorities’ powers under the Information Technology Act.

Emphasising the importance of access to justice, the Bench said lawyers must not be prevented from performing their professional duties. Mehta, the Centre’s second-highest law officer, assured the court that lawyers would not face obstruction in their work.

The Bench also directed that no one should be detained except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly in cases involving peaceful and unarmed gatherings outside areas where prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) were in force.

It further ordered the authorities to remove, if they had not already done so, a board indicating the imposition of Section 163 restrictions around the Supreme Court premises.

The court directed the alleged contemnors to file affidavits responding to the contempt petitions and submit a compliance report detailing their adherence to the earlier order. Other unlisted petitions mentioned before the court are to be served on the Solicitor General’s office and tagged with the pending contempt proceedings and writ petition.

During the hearing, Mehta submitted that Metro services were operating normally and that the overall volume of train operations had not been reduced on October 10. However, he acknowledged that entry and exit had been restricted at several stations.

The Bench asked the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to clarify the status of the affected stations through an affidavit. It observed that authorities had initially proposed closing 57 stations, with the number subsequently reduced following the Supreme Court’s intervention.

The court also sought details of advisories issued by railway authorities and directed the Union government to file its response to the contempt petitions, along with the compliance report, by Tuesday.

It reiterated that Metro services must continue according to their normal schedule, subject to restrictions required by a public order situation.

The urgent Sunday hearing was convened after petitioners alleged that the Supreme Court’s October 9 directions had been violated on October 10. They claimed that restrictions on Metro and railway services, an internet shutdown and widespread detentions had created a curfew-like situation in Delhi.

Senior advocates appearing for the petitioners alleged that several Metro stations, including GTB Nagar and Vishwavidyalaya, had remained inaccessible. They also claimed that lawyers, journalists, students and political leaders had been detained despite the earlier court directions.

Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing in a separate plea challenging the preventive detention of opposition leaders, alleged that more than 7,000 people, including student leaders, journalists and political figures, had been detained.

She argued that preventive detention could not be used to suppress the fundamental right to peaceful protest. Guruswamy also contended that restrictions on Metro services and internet connectivity had impeded freedom of movement and access to justice.

Other senior advocates, including Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Sanjay Hegde, raised concerns over alleged restrictions on lawyers and detentions outside the areas covered by prohibitory orders.

The Bench was informed that around 150 lawyers had been detained after assembling outside the Supreme Court premises. It was also alleged that some police personnel were not wearing visible identification badges.

Mehta, however, told the court that the authorities had documents and videos showing that some people detained around 2 p.m. had been released by 6 p.m.

The Centre’s law officer argued that the habeas corpus plea might no longer survive in view of the releases, while leaving the legality of the detentions for the Supreme Court to consider.

On Friday, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, had directed that there should be no complete prohibition on the movement of Metro trains ahead of the proposed demonstration against CEC Gyanesh Kumar.

The court had asked authorities to ensure that Metro and other railway services operated in a suitably regulated manner to minimise inconvenience to the public. It had also directed them to issue adequate traffic advisories.

The Delhi Police had denied permission for the proposed demonstration, citing public safety, traffic management and law-and-order concerns. It had also stated that prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the BNSS were in force in the New Delhi area.