Contempt petition Supreme Court Metro closures: DMRC’s announcement that entry and exit gates at 45 Metro stations would stay closed from 9 pm on October 9 to 6 pm on October 10 is, a petitioner alleges, a breach of the Court’s order against any complete prohibition on transport. The allegations are untested and no view has been expressed on the merits.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Seeking contempt action against the Union Home Secretary, the Delhi Police Commissioner and the DMRC Chairperson, Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi has moved the Supreme Court, alleging that Delhi Metro station closures and train cancellations ahead of the October 10 protest violate the Court’s order of October 9, which said there should be no complete ban on transport [Contempt petition arising from M.A. Baby v. Union of India].
Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi filed the petition, which names Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and DMRC Chairperson D Thara as the proposed contemnors. The order said to have been flouted was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Tripathi was among the petitioners seeking an independent probe into violence during the July Jantar Mantar student protests, but was not a petitioner in the earlier petitions on Metro and railway restrictions. The protest was called by the Cockroach Janta Party and other groups.
What the petitioner says he saw
According to the petitioner, DMRC announced that entry and exit gates at 45 Metro stations would remain closed from 9 pm on October 9 to 6 pm on October 10, subject to security review. The figure was reduced from 57, he says, but the closures still defy the Court’s order.
He states that he visited two stations around 9:30 pm on October 9. At GTB Nagar, he alleges, Gates 1 and 2 were closed and Gate 3 allowed only regulated exits, and he says he video-recorded Gate 2. At Vishwavidyalaya, he alleges, the entry gate was shut and only the exit gate was open. He further alleges that around 8:30 pm he visited Jantar Mantar and saw only police and paramilitary personnel, that train cancellations continue, that revised transport arrangements were inadequately publicised, and that the restrictions have “crippled public life” in the capital.
The order said to be flouted
On October 9, the Court took note of a Delhi Police communication directing DMRC to close 57 Metro stations, and of another on cancelling Mail and Express trains at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin stations. It described the restrictions as overreaching and drew a line between regulating public transport and prohibiting it altogether. An outright prohibition on Metro movement was ruled out, while regulated operations consistent with proportionality were allowed.
The Bench recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s assurance that the authorities would reconsider the restrictions, and directed DMRC, the railway authorities and Delhi Police (Traffic) to file compliance reports within four days. It expressed no view on the merits of the protest or the restrictions.
The petitioner’s charge
The petition contends that the conduct:
“amounts to an intentional attempt to bypass and undermine the authority and majesty of this Hon’ble Court.”
What he asks for
Permission to institute contempt proceedings for alleged wilful disobedience of the Court’s directions is sought, along with a direction that the three officials appear personally to explain why contempt action should not be initiated. As interim relief, the petitioner wants the blanket prohibitory orders affecting Metro and railway operations withdrawn immediately, regulated services restored, and the position made public at once.
Where it stands
Neither a listing date nor any order of the Court on the contempt petition has been reported. The allegations are those of the petitioner and are untested, the respondents have not been reported as responding, and no view has been expressed on the merits.
Case Details: Contempt petition arising from M.A. Baby v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India. Order alleged to be violated: October 9, 2026, passed by a Bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Case number to be added.
Appearances: Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi, petitioner, through Advocate-on-Record Chand Qureshi.