“Completely disregarded” the requirement of prior permission: that is the Delhi Police’s allegation against CJP organisers in a counter-affidavit defending its October 10 preventive measures before the Supreme Court.
New Delhi: A Delhi Police counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner in the Supreme Court defends the preventive measures taken on October 10, in contempt petitions alleging violation of the Court’s October 9 order during that day’s protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, particularly over the closure of 12 Metro stations [MA Baby v. Union of India and Others; Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan].
Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued notice in the contempt pleas at a special sitting on October 11. The matters are listed on Thursday, October 15, when the Court is expected to look at the compliance reports and responses of the authorities. The Delhi protest matters begin at item 22 of the day’s list.
Where the contempt case stands
On October 9, the Court directed that Metro and rail services in Delhi run in a regulated manner and not be stopped altogether ahead of the protests. A contempt petition followed on October 10, alleging that station closures and train cancellations breached that direction. At the special sitting on Sunday, October 11, Justices Bagchi and Mohana recorded a prima facie case and issued notice to the alleged contemnors. They called for counter affidavits and compliance reports, and passed ad-interim directions on Metro and rail services, free movement, internet access and illegal detention.
The police’s account of October 10
The affidavit says the organisers from the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) “completely disregarded the requirement of seeking prior permission” for the protest. It also alleges that marches by the Congress on October 6, 7 and 8 had choked parts of Delhi and caused inconvenience to the public.
The police further allege that the gathering was aggressive and was fuelled by persons posing as “freelance journalists” who harassed police personnel, particularly women officers. These events, they say, are the grounds for the preventive measures put in place that day.
Other filings and a connected writ
The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation has told the Court in its own compliance affidavit that all 4,157 scheduled trips ran on October 10, and that entry and exit restrictions, imposed on Delhi Police directions, covered 45 of its 303 stations.
Also listed on Thursday is a writ petition by a student challenging Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which allows the police to detain or remove anyone who disregards their directions.
Allegations on both sides
What the affidavit says is the Delhi Police’s account and is untested. The responses of the CJP, the Congress and the petitioners are not yet on record. The contempt allegations against the authorities are equally untested; the prima facie view recorded on October 11 is not a finding of contempt, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
Case Title: MA Baby v. Union of India and Others [W.P.(C) 63560/2026], with Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan [Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 63801/2026]
Bench (October 11 notice): Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Filing: Counter-affidavit of the Delhi Police Commissioner, ahead of the hearing on October 15, 2026