In a single sitting, the Supreme Court issued notice on every pending plea arising from the Delhi protests against the Chief Election Commissioner and asked both sides to name nodal counsel to sort out the overlap.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice in all the petitions arising from the October 10 protests in Delhi against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, covering complaints of mass detentions, alleged police excesses, Metro closures and the mobile internet shutdown, and called on the respondents to file their replies [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan and connected matters].
The batch was taken up by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the authorities, while a large group of senior counsel, including Dr A.M. Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Indira Jaising and Dr Menaka Guruswamy, appeared for the various petitioners.
“We are just identifying the matters”
Sankaranarayanan handed up a chart listing the cases and their prayers, noting that some petitions concerned the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and not the protests. When counsel began to argue, the Chief Justice made the purpose of the day clear:
“I don’t want to hear arguments. We are just identifying the matters.”
At the close of the exercise, the Chief Justice said: “All other matters pertaining to the protest issue, we are issuing notice. There are petitions which are overlapping.” The Bench proposed that the Solicitor General’s side and the petitioners each appoint a nodal counsel to compile the issues arising across the petitions and identify those that overlap.
SIR matters kept apart
The Bench separated petitions that, in its view, were not directly about the protests. Items 24 and 25, the latter being the INDIA bloc leaders’ petition led by Rahul Gandhi on the Election Commission’s decision-making under Section 18 and on Forms 6 and 7, were issued notice and tagged with the pending SIR matters. The Chief Justice said the Court would ask one of the petitioners about his conduct on the next date, adding that issuing notice “does not mean that we are condemning anything”.
The petitions of AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi and RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha were also kept aside. “We are only segregating the matters which are not directly related to the protests. They may have some bearing, but they are substantially different matters,” the Chief Justice said.
Section 172, Jantar Mantar and the women journalists
Among the protest matters, the Bench noted that Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was being challenged in its entirety, describing it as a provision of preventive detention that the Court would need to read in the light of the Constitution. It confined its notice to the new provision. The Court also issued notice on the challenges to the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site, directed the preservation of CCTV footage and digital material, and protected a woman journalist from coercive action pending the consideration of her complaint.
The Solicitor General asked that the Section 163 notification relied on by the petitioners be placed on record, noting that the Delhi Police reply did not contain it.
Other submissions
Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, appearing in a plea seeking regulation of processions near the Supreme Court and the High Court, said 200 lawyers had signed a memorandum objecting to what happened within the Supreme Court precincts. He also alleged, citing a news agency report, that a pregnant woman journalist had been pushed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi within the precincts. That allegation is untested, Rahul Gandhi’s response is not on record, and the Court made no observation on it beyond issuing notice. On the plea against browbeating of the judiciary, the Chief Justice remarked: “Nobody can browbeat the judiciary.”
The road to Thursday’s hearing
The litigation began before the protests. On October 9, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana held that there could be no complete prohibition on Metro and train services in Delhi 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. A contempt petition by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi followed on October 10, alleging Metro station closures and train cancellations in breach of that order, alongside complaints of mass detentions and a mobile internet shutdown.
At a special Sunday sitting on October 11, Justices Bagchi and Mohana 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, and ordered a Section 163 notice board near the Court removed. Habeas petitions, including one by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, were heard with it.
Ahead of 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.
Separately, by a standing order dated October 11, the Delhi Police de-notified Jantar Mantar as a protest site, and a student, Samriddhi Das, challenged Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, under which many protesters were allegedly detained.
The allegations raised in these petitions, and the authorities’ responses to them, are untested. The Court has issued notice and 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