“Police officers don’t have an individual right to maintain law and order over and above the State,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi told counsel for police officers at the Supreme Court’s special Sunday hearing on the Delhi protests, where the Bench also directed that Metro, rail and internet services run normally. The allegations against the authorities are contested and untested, and the Bench has expressed no view on the merits.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Telling counsel appearing for police officers that police officers do not have an individual right to maintain law and order over and above the State, the Supreme Court on Sunday heard petitions alleging violation of its October 9 order and illegal detention during the October 10 protests in Delhi [Menaka Guruswamy v. Union of India & Anr].
The remark came from Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who was sitting with Justice V Mohana at a special sitting in Court No. 5.
What The Bench Ordered
Dictating the order, the Bench issued notice to the alleged contemnors to file an affidavit on the contempt petition and a compliance report on the October 9 order by Tuesday, October 13. Metro and rail facilities are to function normally unless regulations are needed in view of public order under Article 19(2), free movement of people is to be permitted subject to traffic regulations, the need for barricades is to be reviewed forthwith, and internet facilities are to remain undisturbed, without taking away powers under the IT Act.
“There shall not be detention save and except by procedure established by law, particularly with respect to assemblage of peaceful, unarmed people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation.”
The Bench also directed that the Section 163 board near the Supreme Court be taken down, if not already done, so that access to courts is not in doubt.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | SCBA Urges CJI Surya Kant To Intervene Over Detention Of Advocates Near Supreme Court
How The Remark Came Up
The Bench was hearing about the extent of the detentions, which counsel for the petitioners described as running into thousands, when Advocate Dehadrai, appearing for police officers, submitted that police officers were also brutalised. Justice Bagchi responded:
“Police officers don’t have an individual right to maintain law and order over and above the State. Please assist the learned SG.”
Life and liberty, he added, are equally sensitive, whether of a police officer or a citizen. All intervention applications would be listed, he said, and a composite order would be passed on the listed matters.
Where The Two Sides Stand
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Menaka Guruswamy, along with Advocates Shadan Farasat and Sanjay Hegde, submitted that people were picked up from trains and from outside the restricted radius, that the internet was suspended, that Metro stations were closed despite the earlier order, and that lawyers were obstructed and ill-treated. They sought an interim order. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisted by ASG Raju, denied and disputed the contempt allegations.
He submitted that Delhi Metro was functioning normally with entry and exit restricted at 45 of 303 stations, and stated that most of those detained were released within hours. He assured the Bench that internet was restored, all stations were open and that lawyers, journalists and other professionals would not be impeded. Other counsel seeking intervention contended that fundamental freedoms must be exercised responsibly.
On the habeas petitions, Justice Bagchi said the State would be asked to satisfy three tests: the circumstances of the detention, the manner in which it took place, and its justification. The conduct of police officers without badges and the exercise of force would be examined, he said, adding that the Court is duty-bound under Article 32 to prevent encroachment on fundamental rights. Justice Mohana asked the petitioners’ side to undertake that any protest would be peaceful and would not instigate.
All allegations of excessive force, illegal detention and contempt are contested and untested. The Court has made no finding on the merits.
Case Details: Menaka Guruswamy v. Union of India & Anr, Diary No. 63858/2026 (Article 32 habeas corpus petition), heard with contempt petitions and applications over the order dated October 9, 2026. Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Special Sunday sitting, October 11, 2026. Next hearing: Tuesday, October 13, 2026.
Appearances: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Menaka Guruswamy and Sanjay Hegde, and Advocate Shadan Farasat, for the petitioners and applicants; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with ASG Raju for the Union and authorities; Advocate Dehadrai for police officers.