The Supreme Court today adjourned to October 15 the pleas filed relating to protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission's SIR of electoral rolls.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was scheduled to hear the matter today, but considering Justice Mohana's ill-health, the parties expressed that they had no objection if the matters were taken up on October 15.
Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, CU Singh, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Indira Jaising, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared.
The Court sought the presence of a senior Delhi police officer to respond to the plea of women journalists alleging police assault during protest coverage.
On the SG's request, the Court extended the time till October 15 for filing of a compliance report pursuant to the Court's October 9 directions and the response to Shailendra Mani Tripathi's contempt petition and Dr Menaka Guruswamy's petition.
Notice was also issued today on a fresh petition filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms challenging Section 16 of the Chief Election Commissioners and Other Election Commissioners Act 2023, which provides immunity to ECs for actions taken in discharge of official duties.
In a special sitting on October 11, the Court directed that there shall be no detention of any person except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly with respect to any assembly of peaceful and unarmed persons beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS prohibitory orders are in operation. A bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also directed the authorities to take down the board concerning the imposition of Section 163 of BNSS in the area around the Supreme Court, if not already done, to ensure there was no apprehension regarding access to justice, including ingress and egress to any court of law.
The Court further directed that metro and rail facilities shall function normally unless restrictions are required to be imposed keeping in mind disturbances to public order, as contemplated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. On the movement of people, the Court directed that free movement in the city be permitted subject to traffic regulations and lawyers, journalists, other professionals be not impeded in discharging their professional duties. It further ordered that the imposition of barricades be reviewed forthwith, keeping in mind law and order and other traffic conditions. It was also directed that internet services shall remain undisturbed in the city.
While finding a case of "prima facie" contempt, the Court also issued notice to the authorities and sought their response, along with a compliance affidavit on the earlier directions regarding train and metro services.
Yesterday (October 12), when Opposition leaders including LoP Rahul Gandhi were scheduled to march to the Supreme Court to file a petition over the CEC and SIR row, the CJI orally remarked that democratic activities should take place (at designated places) and Supreme Court should not be dragged into such things. The judge added that there shall be no impediment in the movement of lawyers, court staff and litigants. During another mentioning pertaining to illegal detention of lawyers, the CJI expressed that every lawyer has a right to take part in a peaceful protest.
Background
Initially, CPI(M) General Secretary MA Baby and other petitioners approached the Court challenging the curbs imposed by the Union/Delhi authorities ahead of the protests against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commission.
On October 9, a bench led by CJI Kant told the Centre to not complete stop train and metro services in Delhi in anticipation of the October 10 protest called by CJP and others. Taking note of Delhi Police communications directing the closure of 57 Metro stations and the cancellation of trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations, the Court observed that the notifications appeared to be “overreaching” insofar as they imposed a complete prohibition on essential public transport. It held that Metro services could be regulated but should not be subjected to an outright ban, consistent with the principle of proportionality.
Thereafter, a contempt petition was filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, alleging that the authorities closed Metro stations and restricted train services despite the Supreme Court's October 9 directions. He sought contempt proceedings against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and DMRC Chairperson D Thara.
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy's petition challenged the detention of political leaders, including former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, former Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and former Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar. It alleged that several leaders were picked up from their residences and taken to undisclosed locations before they could reach the protest site.
RJD Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha approached the Court alleging disproportionate use of force, illegal detention and house arrests of protesters, students, advocates and political leaders, as well as sexual harassment of women protesters. His petition also challenges the restrictions imposed on public transport and mobile internet services, road closures and the use of phone jammers. It alleges that more than 6,000 people were detained and refers to reports of 250 train cancellations and the closure of 45 Metro stations on October 10. Jha has sought a declaration that the authorities' actions between October 9 and 10 were illegal and unconstitutional.
Advocate Aman Prasad filed a contempt petition against Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, alleging that police personnel assaulted and detained unarmed protesters, manhandled women, and operated without visible name tags or other identifying details. The petition refers to alleged incidents near Jantar Mantar, INA and Dilli Haat, including the alleged assault of Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat near the Safdarjung Airport flyover and the detention of journalist Ayush Tiwari of Scroll while he was covering the protests.
Prasad's petition alleges violations of the Supreme Court's earlier orders in Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union of India, concerning allegations of police excesses during the July student protests, and the October 9 order in M.A. Baby. It may be recalled that proceedings in Tripathi's case resulted in formation of a High-Powered Enquiry Committee to examine allegations concerning the use of force, treatment of women protesters and accountability of police officers.
The Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association (SCAORA) has moved the Court seeking an independent, impartial and time-bound inquiry into the alleged illegal detention and manhandling of lawyers by Delhi Police during the CEC protest march on October 10. The plea submits that the lawyers were intercepted by Delhi Police personnel and taken to the Yamuna Sports Complex in Surajmal Vihar, New Delhi. Advocates-on-Record Pyoli and Shashank Raj Singh were among those detained. The petition seeks directions to identify the police personnel involved, preserve evidence relating to the incident and hold those responsible accountable.
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has moved the Court over the alleged manhandling and detention of lawyers by police near the Supreme Court on October 10, seeking accountability of the officers involved and a review of restrictions affecting access to courts. The petition alleges that several advocates, including senior advocates, women lawyers and senior citizens, were forcibly placed in police vehicles and taken away without being informed of the grounds for their detention.
The SCBA has sought a status report detailing the legal basis and duration of the detentions, the officers involved, the use of force, and the instructions issued through the police chain of command. The petition also challenges the scope and implementation of prohibitory restrictions under Section 163 of BNSS alleging that barricades on roads around the Supreme Court and other courts have obstructed access for lawyers and litigants.
It further raises concerns over the suspension of internet services and closure of the Supreme Court Metro Station, claiming that these measures were taken without consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
A lawyers' body has moved the Court alleging that successive demonstrations by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) in Delhi were aimed at attracting media attention and were disrupting the livelihood and professional functioning of advocates. The plea, filed by Lawyers Voice, seeks permission to intervene in contempt proceedings arising out of a plea concerning protests called by CJP. Lawyers' Voice has urged the Court to issue appropriate directions to ensure that the right to protest is exercised within the bounds of law and does not paralyze the national capital or infringe the fundamental rights of others.
MP in the Rajya Sabha and CPI(M) leader John Brittas has written to the CJI seeking his intervention against the "appalling incident" of police brutality perpetrated against Brittas during the protest over CEC Gyanesh Kumar.
Rajya Sabha MP and Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) National President A.A. Rahim has approached the Court seeking an independent inquiry into the alleged illegal detention and custodial torture of DYFI office-bearers, Central Committee members and activists during a protest against the CEC at Connaught Place, New Delhi, on October 11.
The petition alleges that the protesters were forcibly taken away in police vehicles with curtained windows, assaulted while in custody, and detained for more than seven hours without arrest memos, intimation to their relatives, medical examination in custody, or production before a Magistrate. According to the petition, the protesters were taken to Surajmal Stadium and released around 7:30 PM,. The plea alleges that no arrest memos were prepared, relatives were not informed, and the detainees were neither produced before a Magistrate nor medically examined as required under law.
The Free Speech Collective has moved the Court seeking binding guidelines to protect journalists from alleged unlawful detention, physical assault, intimidation and obstruction by police while covering protests, alleging that journalists continued to face such action even after the Court directed authorities not to hinder their professional duties.
Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and 9 INDIA Bloc leaders have filed a writ petition in the Court challenging the ECI's SIR of electoral rolls. Apart from Congress leaders Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, Saugata Roy (Trinamool Congress-Mamata Banerjee), Akhilesh Yadav (Samajwadi Party), Tejashwi Prasad Yadav (RJD), Sanjay Raut (Shiv Sena UBT), MA Baby (CPI(M)), D Raja (CPI), Mahua Majhi (JMM), Supriya Sule (NCP Sharad Pawar) and ET Muhammed Basheer (IUML) are the other petitioners.
Ahead of filing of the petition, CJI Kant declined Gandhi's request for an appointment to discuss the issues pertaining to ECI and SIR. Yesterday, Gandhi, alongwith Congress and other Opposition leaders, led a march towards the Court. The plan was for Gandhi to present the petition himself, but as the Court Registry was scheduled to close before the march, the petition was filed through lawyers.
'Molitics' journalist Amaan Rastogi (26-year old) has moved the Court in contempt, alleging repeated detention by Delhi Police on 10 and 11 October 2026, despite the Court's order protecting journalists. The petition alleges manhandling, phone damage, and destruction of their press ID. A petition has also been filed on behalf of the Lawyers' Association for Constitution (LAFC) and four of its member/ advocates who were allegedly manhandled and illegally detained by the Delhi Police during protests in Delhi on 10 and 11 October.