Choosing gentle persuasion, the Supreme Court on Friday (October 9, 2026) refrained from questioning the Delhi Police on the legality of shutting down free movement to and within the national capital ahead of the October 10 protests for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Rather, the court urged the government to allow metro and railway services in a “regulated” manner.
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant did not expand on what it exactly meant by a “regulated manner”, but indicated that the restrictions must be proportionate to the anticipated threat to law and order.
In fact, the court even suggested the government ought to find an open, spacious site for protestors to “peacefully and lawfully” protest in the capital. The October 10 protest is expected to happen at Jantar Mantar, the designated site for voicing dissent in the national capital. However, the court remarked that central Delhi was usually cramped with no washroom, medical and drinking water facilities. The government found the court’s proposal for an alternative protest site welcome, and promptly agreed to take a decision.
The hearing began with an impromptu oral mentioning by senior lawyers before the Bench. They urged the court to step in, saying the capital has been “heavily barricaded”, making free movement virtually impossible.
A writ petition filed by CPI(M) party general secretary M.A. Baby said express trains to Delhi, from as far away as Keralam, have been cancelled on October 9 from 2 p.m. onwards. Travellers to Delhi have reportedly been intercepted and detained in several States. Activists were released only on the condition that they would not leave their city of residence.
The lawyers said the co-ordinated, pre-emptive and indefinite prohibitions by the capital’s police force, controlled by the Home Ministry, have caused grave hardships to commuters, patients, students, workers, litigants and travellers who have no connection whatsoever with the protest.
“You can’t shut down an entire city because you cannot handle a bunch of protestors,” senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan submitted.
Senior advocates Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sanjay Hegde, Prashant Bhushan, and Subhash Chandran pointed out that 57 metro stations across Delhi have been shut down.
Justice Bagchi stressed that freedom of association was indeed a fundamental right, but it had to be verified whether permission for the protest had been obtained. The judge said that if not, the protest may prove to be illegal.
Mr. Sankaranarayanan said peaceful protests, even without permission, were not illegal unless an offence was committed during the protest.
CEC row LIVE updates on October 9, 2026
Mr. Sibal said forcible, coercive and restrictive measures cannot be put in place by the State even before anything illegal has been done.
“Detention centres have been identified. YouTubers have been warned of action. There are heavy checks at the borders of Delhi,” he submitted.
Ms. Ramakrishnan asked the court whether it was legal for the police to go from home to home, guest house to guest house, cautioning people against participating in the protest.
The lawyers said the Delhi Police’s prohibition orders have cited no statutory power or order of an Executive Magistrate or any material other than an apprehended “likelihood of unruly mob movement”.
“What is happening in my country? Can we not protest peacefully anymore?” Mr. Sibal asked the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was present in the courtroom, cut in to point out that “it is our country”. He said the measures were meant to prevent any unlawful incidents on October 10. He denied that the city was “paralysed” and the internet blocked.
Mr. Mehta said permission was refused for the October 10 protest, as the same organisers had violated assurances given for earlier protests in June 2026, which had descended into penal violations. “They tried to reach the Parliament, which is not a political building but a symbol of sovereignty. Over 200 police officers were injured. Women police officers were molested,” he submitted.
Justice V. Mohana, on the Bench, observed that petitioners should also be aware of the fact that if anything untoward happened on October 10, “who would be responsible”. Senior advocate N. Hariharan said the ruling party should then impose the same restrictions for the huge political rallies they organise too. Senior advocate C.U. Singh said there was no such “anticipatory stoppage of the right to protest” in the Constitution.
The Chief Justice made it plain that the court was primarily concerned about the “hundreds and thousands of commuters” who would be stranded by the closure of metro stations and public transport.
“We find this difficult to understand… You do whatever is necessary to control anti-social elements. You have CCTVs at the stations. But there is a large group of ordinary people commuting. They have an equal right to movement as there is right to protest,” Chief Justice said.
Justice Bagchi said the government could “regulate the movement of public transport, but not stop it altogether”. The judge said the stoppage of metro for blocks of time through the day amounted to a ban.
The court said the legal issue in question here was the “difference between what is complete prohibition and regulation of movement”.
The court recorded the Solicitor General’s submission to “impress upon authorities to reconsider prohibition” and allow the resumption of metro service and trains in “a regulated manner, keeping in mind proportionality”, so as not to ordinary commuters any discomfort.
The court directed traffic advisories to be extensively published in newspapers and online to avoid hardships to the public on October 10.
Published – October 09, 2026 02:40 pm IST
