Every scheduled Metro trip ran on October 10, the DMRC compliance affidavit tells the Supreme Court, even as entry and exit were restricted at 45 of the network’s 303 stations.
New Delhi: In a compliance affidavit filed before the Supreme Court takes up contempt pleas over Metro closures during the October 10 protests in the capital, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) says that no train services were curtailed or cancelled that day and that 271 trains completed all 4,157 scheduled trips [MA Baby v. Union of India and Others].
The affidavit responds to the Court’s order of October 9, passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, which required Metro and other rail services to run in a regulated manner and not be stopped altogether. On October 11, at a special Sunday sitting, Justices Bagchi and Mohana recorded a prima facie case in a contempt plea alleging that Metro services were substantially shut on October 10 despite that order, and issued notice, including to DMRC.
“Zero reduction” in trips, but far fewer riders
DMRC’s account is that total Metro operations on October 10 saw zero reduction. The 271 trains were inducted strictly on the standard Saturday schedule, it states, and all 4,157 scheduled train trips were operated, so the number of trips did not fall.
Ridership was another matter. DMRC puts the day’s footfall at about 32 lakh, against roughly 58 lakh on a normal second Saturday, and attributes the drop to what it describes as the adverse impact of the protest on the lives of ordinary citizens.
Curbs at 45 stations, on police directions
The station-level restrictions, DMRC says, followed directions from the Delhi Police. Curbs were first proposed at 57 stations; the police later brought the figure down to 45 after reassessing security requirements following the Supreme Court’s intervention. At those 45 stations, about 15 per cent of the network, entry and exit were restricted, whereas 258 stations, more than 85 per cent, stayed fully operational and accessible.
Fourteen of the affected stations were interchange stations. According to DMRC, line-interchange facilities at all of them continued without interruption despite the entry and exit curbs. The affidavit lists, among them, Rajiv Chowk, Kashmere Gate, Central Secretariat, Mandi House, Hauz Khas, Dilli Haat-INA and Netaji Subhash Place.
The affidavit states that the restrictions were lifted from 10 PM on October 10, after a communication from the police. DMRC adds that it kept commuters informed through regular updates on social media, its website and the Sarthi app, and through announcements inside trains and at stations.
How the case got to a contempt notice
It all began with petitions challenging the curbs announced ahead of the October 10 protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. On October 9, the Court observed that the notifications appeared to impose a complete ban on essential public transport and drew a line between regulating train movements and prohibiting them. It directed that Metro and rail services operate in a regulated manner, guided by proportionality and with minimum inconvenience to the public.
A contempt petition came on October 10, alleging that station closures and train cancellations violated that direction. At the Sunday sitting, the Bench of Justices Bagchi and Mohana recorded a prima facie case, issued notice to the alleged contemnors and called for counter affidavits and compliance reports. It also passed ad-interim directions that Metro and rail services function normally in the meantime.
The question for the Bench
For now, the Court has only DMRC’s own account; the petitioners’ response to it is not yet on record. The contempt allegations remain 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. In the end, the Bench will have to decide whether running every scheduled trip while closing entry and exit at 45 stations amounts to the regulated operation its October 9 order required.
Case Title: MA Baby v. Union of India and Others [WP(C) 63560/2026], with Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan [Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 63801/2026]
Bench (October 9 order): CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana; (October 11 special sitting): Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana
Filing: DMRC compliance affidavit, ahead of the hearing on October 15, 2026