Srinagar, Oct 10: The Supreme Court will hold a special sitting on Sunday to hear two petitions arising from the police crackdown on protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, including a contempt plea alleging non-compliance with the court’s directions on public transport restrictions.
A special bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana will hear the matters on October 11, according to reports by India Today, LiveLaw and Bar and Bench.
One of the petitions, filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, seeks contempt proceedings against Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) Chairperson D. Thara over the alleged violation of the Supreme Court’s October 9 order concerning restrictions on Metro and railway services during the planned protests.
The petitioner has alleged that authorities continued to impose restrictions on public transport despite the court’s directions against a complete suspension of essential services. The plea contends that the closure of Metro stations and cancellation of train services caused significant inconvenience to commuters and disrupted public life in the national capital.
The bench will also hear a habeas corpus petition filed by Trinamool Congress MP and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy challenging the preventive detention of protesters, including Opposition leaders, during Saturday’s demonstrations.
The petition questions the legality of detaining political leaders and protesters, including their detention from residences and other locations before they could participate in the demonstrations. It argues that preventive detention cannot be used to curtail the fundamental right to peaceful protest.
The petitions follow the Supreme Court’s October 9 hearing in M.A. Baby v. Union of India, concerning restrictions imposed ahead of the planned demonstrations.
During that hearing, the court questioned directions for closing Metro stations and restricting railway services, observing that the measures appeared to go beyond what was necessary to address security concerns. The bench clarified that Metro services should not be subjected to an outright prohibition, while allowing authorities to regulate operations proportionately in view of the prevailing security situation.
The court also stressed the need for public advisories and arrangements to minimise inconvenience to commuters, while asking authorities to consider suitable alternative venues for peaceful demonstrations.
