An intervention application filed on Sunday says dissent is part of democracy but that the manner of protest must stay within the law; the Supreme Court has not yet heard it.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Seeking to be heard in the contempt proceedings arising from the protests in Delhi, a lawyers’ body, Lawyers’ Voice, has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court, urging the Court to issue appropriate directions so that the right to protest is exercised within the bounds of law and does not paralyse the capital or infringe the fundamental rights of others, including the livelihood of lawyers.
The application was filed on Sunday through its Secretary and Advocate-on-Record Shoumendu Mukherji. The Supreme Court has not yet heard it, and the case number, bench and listing date are not available. The contentions in it are the applicant’s own, are untested, and the Court has expressed no view on them.
Where The Contempt Proceedings Stand
At a special Sunday sitting, a Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice on the contempt petition and directed that Metro and rail facilities function normally unless regulation is needed on public order grounds under Article 19(2), and that there shall be no detention save by procedure established by law, particularly of peaceful, unarmed people assembled beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation. Justice Mohana had also asked those seeking to protest to undertake that they would protest peacefully and not instigate.
The application also points to the position on October 9, when, it states, police told the organisers that the proposed protest was not permitted and that Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was in force. It refers as well to the contempt plea alleging that Metro services were substantially shut on October 10 despite the Supreme Court’s earlier direction that Metro and rail services may be regulated but not stopped. That allegation is disputed by the Union.
The Case Lawyers’ Voice Makes
According to Lawyers’ Voice, the livelihood of its members depends on the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of courts and on the free movement of lawyers, litigants and court staff. It submits that the right to protest is neither absolute nor unrestricted, and states:
“Dissent is an integral part of democracy, but the manner of protest must remain within the bounds of law.”
The applicant contends that the protests are aimed at attracting media attention and remaining politically relevant, and that grievances over the verification of election records, linked to a demand for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, should be pursued through statutory and constitutional remedies, since the issue is sub judice. The organisers of the protest and the Cockroach Janta Party have not been heard on these contentions, and their position is not part of the application. The application also cites media reports that about 7,000 people were detained and released by late evening, a figure that has not been verified.
The contentions in the application are untested, and no view is expressed on their merits. The petitioners in the connected matters contend that the protest and the movement were peaceful and that the detentions were illegal, which the Union disputes.
Case Details: Intervention application by Lawyers’ Voice in the contempt proceedings over the Delhi protests of October 10, 2026, filed October 11, 2026. Case title, number, bench and next date not available.
Appearances: Advocate-on-Record Shoumendu Mukherji for Lawyers’ Voice.