A special bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the directions on Sunday while hearing petitions challenging the closure of Metro stations, restrictions on transport services and police action against demonstrators demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
The court said barricades should be removed unless “absolutely warranted” by public order requirements. It emphasised that restrictions on movement must remain proportionate and should not unnecessarily inconvenience residents, commuters or people seeking access to essential services.
The judges also directed authorities to ensure that Metro and railway operations continued normally, subject to lawful security regulations. They made clear that maintaining public order did not justify sweeping prohibitions affecting people unconnected with the demonstrations.
The bench issued notices to the Centre and Delhi authorities over allegations that restrictions imposed on Saturday violated earlier judicial directions against blanket transport shutdowns. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on Tuesday.
The proceedings followed complaints that 45 Metro stations, principally around central Delhi, had been closed during the protests, disrupting journeys and limiting access to areas surrounding Jantar Mantar, Connaught Place and government offices.
The court sought explanations from the authorities responsible for the restrictions and questioned whether the measures complied with its earlier instructions requiring transport services to remain operational wherever possible.
The judges also addressed allegations of unlawful detention, excessive police force and obstruction of lawyers and journalists. They directed that peaceful demonstrators should not be detained without legal justification and that lawyers must be allowed access to courts.
The bench emphasised that journalists performing professional duties should not face unlawful interference. Allegations concerning police conduct and restrictions on access to public places were among the matters raised during the proceedings.
Internet connectivity also came under judicial scrutiny. The court said services should not be interrupted except through procedures authorised by law, reinforcing its insistence that security arrangements must respect statutory and constitutional safeguards.
The directions followed an earlier intervention by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, which questioned the justification for extensive restrictions on Metro and railway services ahead of Saturday’s demonstrations.
That bench had observed that public transport could be regulated to address genuine security concerns but should not be completely suspended merely because large gatherings were anticipated.
Despite those observations, substantial restrictions remained in place during Saturday’s protests, prompting lawyers and petitioners to seek further judicial intervention.
The CJP demonstrations were organised against the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and to demand Kumar’s resignation. Protest organisers alleged that the revision process threatened voting rights and could exclude legitimate electors.
The Election Commission and the government have rejected allegations of electoral manipulation. The Bharatiya Janata Party has maintained that electoral roll revisions are necessary to ensure accurate voter lists and remove invalid entries.
Police had denied permission for the planned Jantar Mantar demonstration, citing public order concerns. Security personnel subsequently established barricades at important intersections and restricted access to several central Delhi locations.
Demonstrators nevertheless gathered at different locations, leading to confrontations with police and the detention of activists, student leaders and political representatives.
Petitioners argued that the restrictions affected fundamental freedoms, including peaceful assembly and movement, and imposed disproportionate hardship on people who were not participating in the protests.
The authorities’ responsibility to maintain security was acknowledged during the hearing, but the court stressed that preventive measures must have an adequate legal basis and remain limited to what circumstances required.
The judges also addressed restrictions near the Supreme Court premises, emphasising that access to justice must not be obstructed through indiscriminate prohibitory arrangements.
The proceedings included applications concerning detained protesters and allegations that officials had disregarded earlier directions on public transport.
The court sought compliance information from the relevant authorities, including details of restrictions imposed and the measures undertaken to restore services.
The petitions concerning detentions and alleged non-compliance are expected to receive further consideration at Tuesday’s hearing, when the authorities must respond to the judicial notices.
