The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up pleas challenging restrictions on public transport and access to public facilities in Delhi ahead of a protest scheduled for October 10 against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The petitioners alleged that 57 metro stations had been shut, trains cancelled and several other restrictions imposed, affecting the ability of people to reach the national capital to participate in the demonstration.
The matter was mentioned before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for CPI(M) General Secretary M.A. Baby, urged the Court to intervene urgently, saying the restrictions were disproportionate and the protest was intended to be peaceful.
“
“All trains cancelled, metro stations closed, you cannot move anywhere. Hotels are closed not to people who are visiting. Nizamuddin closed. RWAs have told you cannot come out. What’s happening to my country? This is a peaceful protest. How can they do this?” Sibal submitted.
He submitted that the restrictions extended beyond the protest site and affected people travelling to Delhi, including lawyers coming from outside the capital. He also referred to the cancellation of trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin stations, including services from Howrah and Sealdah, and alleged that internet restrictions and curbs on hotel bookings were also being contemplated.
Sibal placed a compilation before the Court which, according to his submissions, referred to the deployment of 221 companies of Central Armed Police Forces comprising around 23,000 personnel, the preparation of 10 detention centres and checks at Delhi’s borders. He also referred to alleged restrictions on fresh bookings at OYO hotels, advisories to media personnel to carry identification and possible action against YouTubers and mobile journalists.
Questioning the scale of the restrictions, he argued that peaceful assembly could not be treated as unlawful merely because the authorities anticipated a law-and-order challenge.
“
“Peaceful protest is not unlawful. When it turns [unlawful], you do what you have to do. There is no question of, you can’t shut down an entire city because you are incapable of handling some protesters.”
Police had declined permission for protest, Court told
During the hearing, the Bench sought clarity on whether the lawyers appearing before it represented the organisers of the proposed demonstration. Sibal said M.A. Baby had filed a petition. He submitted that applications had been made to the police, but permission had been denied.
The Indian Youth Congress had also applied for permission and approached the Delhi High Court after its request was rejected. Sibal said that the High Court had initially listed the matter for Monday, even though the protest was scheduled for the following day.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi said the right to association and peaceful assembly had to be exercised within the framework of the law. He observed that organisers should apply for permission and approach the courts if the authorities refused to grant it or delayed a decision. He remarked:
“
“No doubt, fundamental rights to association, but then that right is to be exercised as per the laws prevailing in the country. You have to make an application. If they don’t grant, if they drag their feet, you come to court.”
The petitioners, however, argued that the restrictions went beyond the refusal of permission for a particular gathering and effectively curtailed the rights of ordinary residents and commuters.
The Bench indicated that it would have to examine the circumstances surrounding the proposed protest and the restrictions imposed by the authorities. Justice Bagchi observed that the Court needed to balance the rights of those wishing to assemble with the rights of the wider public to access transport and other essential facilities. Justice Bagchi remarked:
“
“Before us is a document which appears to impose a blanket ban on certain common facilities relating to transport, access to other essential facilities and the designated place. That definitely affects common citizenry rights. Now, we have a balance here to make: a right of a group of citizens who wish to protest and the right of another group, maybe a much larger group, who want access to their common and essential facilities. The State is between the two.”
Justice Bagchi cautioned that the Court could not reach a conclusion without understanding the ground realities, including the expected size of the gathering and the risks anticipated by the authorities.
The Bench suggested that the restrictions could potentially be narrowed if the organisers provided details of the expected attendance and arrangements for the demonstration. Justice Bagchi said the authorities could then be asked to calibrate their response instead of imposing restrictions across a broad range of public facilities.
“
“If we know who are the organisers, we may ask them what is your expected number of people who are going to assemble. Then we can regulate that and call upon the State to also calibrate their responses, not in a broad-spectrum way as this order.”
The Court also indicated that the organisers should be represented before it so that their position could be considered alongside the concerns of ordinary citizens affected by the restrictions.
Sibal submitted that the applications for permission had been made well in advance and the organisers had intended to hold the demonstration at the designated protest site. He also pointed out that heavy barricading had allegedly made it difficult for people to access the venue.
The Bench noted that the proposed protest was scheduled for October 10 and any intervention would require an urgent assessment of the restrictions and the arrangements for the gathering. It asked the lawyers to return at 2 pm with further details, including information about the organisers and the proposed assembly.