Footage that could be overwritten within 30 or 60 days will now be kept: the Supreme Court has directed law enforcement agencies to preserve all CCTV and digital material from the Delhi protests, and has issued notice on a journalists’ body’s complaint about seized devices.
New Delhi: In the batch of petitions arising from the October 10 Delhi protests, the Supreme Court on Thursday told all law enforcement agencies to preserve CCTV footage and any other digital material they have collected, and issued notice on a plea by the Delhi Union of Journalists, which seeks the return of journalists’ electronic devices allegedly seized by the police [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan and connected matters].
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the directions, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the authorities.
A judicial order, not just a circular
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia asked for an interim order to protect and preserve CCTV footage, relying on the prayer in his petition. According to the Solicitor General, the Commissioner of Police had already sent every police station a written intimation, asking not only that the footage be preserved but also that it be forwarded to headquarters for separate preservation. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising was unmoved: “It has to be a judicial order.”
The Chief Justice recalled that the Court had already ordered, on the last occasion, that anyone holding footage should file it in Court. He then dictated:
“In this regard, as agreed to among the parties, all law enforcement agencies are directed to preserve the CCTV footage or any other digital material collected by them. Similarly, such material collected by private parties, they shall also be at liberty to preserve.”
Counsel spelt out why time mattered: “The difficulty is not malice or lack of faith in the Supreme Court administration. The system is that after 30 days or 60 days, the footage gets overwritten.”
Journalists’ devices: a dispute of fact
Appearing for the Delhi Union of Journalists, Senior Advocate C.U. Singh said the petition set out incidents that took place after the Court’s October 11 order, and asked that the seized devices be returned. “Their livelihood depends on them. Their work depends on them. Their material is in those devices,” he said, adding that the police have no authority to seize journalists’ devices.
The Solicitor General’s position was that no devices had been seized, and that a direction could not be made “on assumptions”. The Chief Justice recorded the SG’s statement, made on instructions, that there had been no seizures, and issued notice.
Section 172 BNSS, in passing
On the same day the Bench issued notice on the challenges to Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which lets the police detain or remove persons who disregard their directions, and limited the notice to the new provision. The Chief Justice called it a provision of preventive detention that has to be read in light of the Constitution. Gopal Sankaranarayanan urged that the provisions be examined given “the manner in which this is being utilised as a licence against Article 21”.
Background to the batch
The first step was on October 9. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that Metro and train services in Delhi could not be completely prohibited ahead of the October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls, and directed that services run in a regulated manner. Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi then filed a contempt petition on October 10, alleging Metro station closures and train cancellations in breach of that order, together with complaints of mass detentions and a mobile internet shutdown.
Justices Bagchi and Mohana held a special Sunday sitting on October 11. They recorded a prima facie case, issued notice to the alleged contemnors, and passed ad-interim directions that Metro and rail services function normally, that people move freely, that internet services remain undisturbed and that no one be illegally detained. They also ordered a Section 163 notice board near the Court removed, and heard habeas petitions, including one by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, with it.
Before Thursday, the authorities filed their replies. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation said all 4,157 scheduled trips ran on October 10 while entry and exit were restricted at 45 of its 303 stations on Delhi Police directions. Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan tendered an unconditional apology while defending the internet shutdown as proportionate, and the Delhi Police Commissioner’s affidavit alleged that the organisers had disregarded the requirement of prior permission.
The allegations in these petitions, and the authorities’ responses to them, are untested. Notice has been issued, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
Case: Batch of petitions on the October 10 Delhi protests, including Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan [Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 63801/2026] and connected matters
Bench: CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Hearing: October 15, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Dr A.M. Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, N. Hariharan, C.U. Singh, Dr Menaka Guruswamy, Arundhati Katju, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Shoeb Alam, Sanjay Hegde, Indira Jaising, Mukta Gupta and Gaurav Bhatia, with Advocates Vrinda Grover and Nizam Pasha, for various petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the authorities