The Supreme Court has told the Centre not to completely halt Delhi trains and Metro services ahead of the October 10 protest, asking that movement be regulated in proportion to the need rather than stopped altogether.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Union government not to completely stop train services to Delhi or close Delhi Metro stations ahead of the October 10 protests called by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and opposition groups against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and to allow services in a regulated manner. The Court also asked the Centre to take an appropriate decision on whether Jantar Mantar should continue as the designated protest venue and to consider designating another location [M.A. Baby and Others v. Union of India and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard petitions moved by CPI(M) General Secretary M.A. Baby and others challenging the proposed restrictions after an urgent mentioning. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre. The contentions below are those of the parties, the Court has not ruled on their merits, and no finding has been recorded that any restriction was unlawful.
The challenge
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Mr Baby, told the Court that trains scheduled to reach New Delhi and Nizamuddin stations between 4 AM and 2 PM on October 10 had been suspended. “It means a Kerala train can’t come here if it’s reaching Delhi,” he submitted. Senior Advocates Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Advocates N. Hariharan and Vrinda Grover and others were also among those who mentioned the matter. The petitioners’ case, as put to the Court, was that the measures, which include the closure of Metro stations, are disproportionate and affect ordinary commuters.
A police communication dated October 8 had asked the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to consider closing entry and exit gates at 57 stations from 9 PM on October 9 and to consider reducing train frequency. Justice Bagchi noted that several stations were to close from 9 PM that day until further orders.
What the Bench said
The Chief Justice told the Solicitor General that the Court’s main concern was the complete closure of Metro station entries. “Our concern is not with respect to any protesters or any individual,” he said, pointing to commuters from Gurugram, Greater Noida, and East and South Delhi, including students, employees and senior citizens. He accepted that the authorities have the power to regulate, but said that power does not extend to halting everything. Proportionality, he said, must guide the measures, and law and order is the government’s responsibility, with women and senior citizens also needing protection while remaining able to travel.
Justice Bagchi said reducing the frequency of services could be a valid regulation but that complete closure would be extreme:
Regulate movements of trains, but don’t stop it altogether.
The Centre’s position
The Solicitor General said a complete stoppage might be a proportionate step depending on the circumstances. He disputed the claim that the whole city was being shut down and said the measures were a response to violence after the July 20 Parliament march attempt by CJP protesters. He told the Court that the internet shutdown applied only to certain sensitive areas and would be reviewed on security inputs, and that many women police officers had been harassed earlier in the week, asking the Bench to view videos. These are the Centre’s submissions and have not been tested.
After the Bench said regulation cannot amount to a total ban, Mr Mehta assured the Court that he would urge the authorities to allow services in a regulated manner.
The directions
The Court recorded that the Solicitor General had agreed to ask the authorities to reconsider the prohibition and allow regulated movement of trains and the Metro. It stated:
We make it clear that there shall be no complete prohibition on movement of metro/trains.
The Court also said that a considered decision should be taken and given wide publicity, and directed that an advisory be published in newspapers and on websites so that the public faces no hardship. On the protest venue, the Court asked the Centre to take an appropriate decision on reconsidering Jantar Mantar as the designated venue and to re-designate another location.
The Jantar Mantar question
A separate public interest litigation by Satish Chand Kaushik, in which the same Bench issued notice to the Centre on August 3, 2026, asks the Court to identify a new protest site in Delhi on the ground that protests at Jantar Mantar affect access, movement and the supply of essential goods and medical services. Separately, the Delhi Police is stated to have refused permission for the CJP demonstration, a point on which counsel addressed the Court, and the organisers’ compliance with the law on permission was also raised during the hearing. Other related petitions are pending before the Delhi High Court.
Why the order matters
The order does not decide whether the October 10 protest may go ahead or whether the refusal of permission was valid. It addresses the means used to manage it, and records that preventive measures must be proportionate and cannot extend to a complete shutdown of public transport that ordinary commuters rely on. The question of an alternative designated venue now rests with the Centre. The Court has expressed no view on the merits of the protesters’ demands or of the Centre’s security concerns, and both sides’ contentions remain untested.
Case Title: M.A. Baby and Others v. Union of India and Others (case number not available)
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 9, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Advocates N. Hariharan and Vrinda Grover, for the petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union of India