Supreme Court Reviews Contempt Plea Over Delhi Metro Restrictions

On Thursday, the Supreme Court received affidavits from Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan and Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, both expressing unconditional apologies related to an alleged contempt of court concerning restrictions imposed on Metro and train services in Delhi.

The issue stems from a court order dated October 9, which instructed authorities to ensure that there was no complete shutdown of Metro and train services in the capital ahead of a protest organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The affidavits submitted by the officials outlined the administrative actions taken during this period and sought to justify their decisions within the legal framework.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the phrase "unconditional apology" is routinely included at the start of affidavits, in accordance with the law. He emphasized that despite media reports implying the government had nothing further to add, the proceedings before the court are independent of public discourse. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant echoed this sentiment, noting that court hearings are not conducted for the benefit of media narratives.

Union Home Secretary Mohan elaborated on the Centre's approval for a temporary suspension of cellular internet services for one day, a request initiated by the Delhi Police and processed in line with legal provisions. This measure was deemed necessary given the circumstances on the ground to maintain public order.

Regarding the detention of protesters, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar stated those held were kept in temporary facilities and released within a span of two to six hours. Detainees were provided with hot meals, and political figures were accommodated in station house officer chambers with access to refreshments such as tea and coffee.

The police further reported that after the Supreme Court's directives, restrictions on Metro stations were eased, with normal operations resuming by 10 pm on October 10.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, addressed multiple petitions related to the recent protests. Notices were issued to the Centre, Delhi Police, the Congress Party, and various opposition leaders. The court also instructed authorities to preserve all closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage and digital evidence connected to the demonstrations.

In addition, the court issued a notice to the Election Commission of India and Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar following petitions filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and other opposition figures. These petitions challenge alleged large-scale voter deletions and irregularities in the ongoing Summary Revision (SIR) exercise, with the cases being linked to existing legal challenges across several states.

The bench indicated that one petitioner would be required to explain their conduct at the next hearing, although the specific individual was not named.

Further notices were sent to the Congress Party, Rahul Gandhi, and other INDIA bloc leaders in response to a petition seeking to restrict political demonstrations within court premises. This petition also called for action regarding the October 12 march to the Supreme Court and sought contempt proceedings related to social media posts by the Congress’ Kerala unit and Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, which criticized the Chief Justice of India.

Senior advocate Gaurav Bhatia, representing the petitioners, argued that protests inside court grounds amounted to attempts to intimidate the judiciary. Chief Justice Kant affirmed that the judiciary cannot be subjected to coercion. However, the court declined to take immediate action on the contempt allegations, stating it would first review responses from those implicated.

Regarding the protests, the Supreme Court directed law enforcement agencies to safeguard all CCTV footage and relevant digital material. Private individuals were also permitted to preserve any pertinent evidence.

The court consolidated overlapping issues by requesting the Solicitor General and petitioners to appoint nodal counsels. With 46 related cases already pending, the bench urged lawyers to avoid submitting additional petitions on the same topics. No broad interim relief was granted during the session.

On the matter of Jantar Mantar’s removal as a designated protest site, the court did not order its immediate restoration. Instead, it sought an explanation from the Centre following a challenge to the Delhi Police’s October 11 order. The Solicitor General clarified that the earlier October 9 court order was not the basis for denotification, noting that a committee had submitted a detailed report on the matter.

The court also addressed a petition concerning allegations of sexual harassment and assault against women journalists covering the protests. The bench indicated the possibility of forming an inquiry committee primarily composed of women, potentially including a former woman judge, an IPS officer, and a social worker. Senior advocate Indira Jaising requested permission to submit sensitive details in a sealed covering to protect the identities of complainants, a request the Chief Justice approved.

This series of hearings underscores the judiciary’s engagement with complex issues arising from recent civil demonstrations, balancing legal scrutiny with respect for democratic rights and maintaining public order. The Supreme Court continues to monitor developments closely as matters unfold.