A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana examined restrictions affecting public transport, movement and access to the capital after senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan raised concerns about their impact on constitutional freedoms.
The court made clear that authorities could not impose disproportionate restrictions affecting millions of residents merely because a demonstration was planned. It opposed blanket closures of Metro and railway services and emphasised the need to balance public safety with citizens’ rights.
The intervention followed proposals to close 57 Delhi Metro stations and cancel several trains serving the capital, alongside extensive barricading, police deployments and restrictions around central Delhi.
The bench recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s assurance that authorities would reconsider the transport restrictions and permit services to operate in a regulated manner. It also called for appropriate traffic advisories to minimise inconvenience.
Chief Justice Surya Kant questioned whether the authorities were responding proportionately to the anticipated gathering. The bench stressed that preventive measures should address genuine security requirements without unnecessarily disrupting ordinary public life.
However, the judges also questioned the organisers’ decision to proceed despite Delhi Police refusing permission for the proposed gathering at Jantar Mantar.
Justice Bagchi observed that a protest conducted without the necessary permission would not comply with the law. The bench asked why the organisers had not directly challenged the police decision denying authorisation.
The court sought details about the expected number of demonstrators and arrangements proposed by the organisers. It indicated that such information was necessary to determine whether the gathering could be accommodated through reasonable regulation.
Sibal and the other senior advocates argued that the administration’s measures extended far beyond restrictions on a particular demonstration. They highlighted disruptions to transport services and limitations affecting people who had no connection with the proposed agitation.
The lawyers maintained that sweeping preventive orders could interfere with the constitutional rights of citizens to move freely and assemble peacefully. They urged judicial scrutiny of measures affecting the wider population.
The court acknowledged these concerns while emphasising that freedom of assembly was subject to lawful restrictions intended to protect public order.
The proceedings centred on the CJP’s proposed demonstration demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over allegations concerning the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
The organisers and opposition parties have accused the Election Commission of implementing an electoral revision process that has resulted in large-scale deletion of voters’ names. The allegations have been rejected by the authorities, who maintain that electoral roll verification is necessary to ensure accuracy.
Delhi Police denied permission for the Jantar Mantar gathering, citing procedural deficiencies and concerns about maintaining law and order.
Police officials said the organisers submitted their application on October 7, whereas the applicable procedure required advance notice of at least 10 days. Authorities also cited concerns arising from compliance with directions during earlier demonstrations.
The Ministry of Home Affairs subsequently warned state governments and Union Territories about possible law-and-order implications arising from the proposed mobilisation.
The ministry referred to the rejection of permission and existing judicial directions governing demonstrations at designated locations. It maintained that gatherings must comply with established legal procedures.
Security preparations meanwhile included the deployment of thousands of police and paramilitary personnel, particularly around Jantar Mantar and other sensitive areas of central Delhi.
Police divided the capital into security zones and established additional checkpoints to regulate movement towards potential protest locations.
Arrangements included reserve personnel, senior officers supervising sensitive areas and buses intended for transporting detained demonstrators if required.
Officers were also equipped with body-worn cameras to document interactions during crowd-control operations.
CJP representatives criticised the restrictions, arguing that the measures would prevent supporters from exercising their democratic rights. They maintained that the demonstration was intended to draw attention to concerns over electoral accountability.
Police officials defended their preparations as necessary to prevent unauthorised gatherings and maintain public safety.
The court separately asked the authorities to issue traffic information enabling residents and commuters to plan their journeys around affected areas.
