Supreme Court Delhi protests: a special Sunday Bench has directed that no one be detained except by the procedure established by law, and that Metro and rail services run normally, unless restrictions are needed for public order. The allegations before the Court are untested, and its directions are subject to the law and order situation.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, at a special Sunday sitting on 11 October 2026, directed that there shall be no detention of any individual except in accordance with the procedure established by law, and that Metro and rail facilities function normally and internet services remain undisturbed in Delhi, while hearing contempt and habeas corpus petitions over the detentions, train cancellations and Metro closures on the day of the protests against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar [Contempt petition of Shailendra Mani Tripathi and connected matters, arising from M.A. Baby v. Union of India].
A special Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the matters.
What the Court directed
“there shall be no detention of any individual except in accordance with the procedure established by law”
The Bench also directed that the board concerning the imposition of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita around the Supreme Court be taken down, if not already done, so that access to the courts is not hindered. Metro and rail services are to function normally unless restrictions are required to be imposed for public order, free movement in the city is to be permitted subject to traffic regulations, the imposition of barricades is to be reviewed forthwith, and internet facilities are to remain undisturbed. Orally, Justice Bagchi said no advocate should in any way be hindered in discharging professional duties. The directions are subject to any law and order situation.
The matters before the Bench
Four sets of pleadings were taken up: a contempt petition by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi alleging that Metro closures continued in breach of the Court’s order of 9 October in M.A. Baby v. Union of India; a habeas corpus petition by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who appeared in person, challenging the detention of political leaders; a contempt petition by advocate Aman Prasad against the Delhi Police Commissioner, alleging assaults, detentions, manhandling of women and police personnel without name tags; and an urgent plea by Rajya Sabha member Manoj Jha, alleging more than 6,000 detentions, about 250 train cancellations and the closure of 45 Metro stations on 10 October.
These are the petitioners’ allegations and none has been tested.
The petitioners’ side
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that people were being picked up from trains and from within a 4 km radius of Jantar Mantar, and that the internet was suspended and 45 Metro stations closed despite a judicial order. In reply, he argued that Article 19(1)(a) is subject only to public order and sought an interim order restoring the internet across the city. Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat told the Court that he had himself been roughed up the previous day and put into a moving bus after being picked up.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the force used was not proportionate, that police without badges should not have been permitted, and that a Section 163 board was put up outside the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde said access to justice includes access to lawyers, who, he alleged, were beaten and threatened with FIRs at police stations. A woman lawyer told the Court that she had walked peacefully with about 150 lawyers, four of whom were taken away in a prison van. Senior Advocates N. Hariharan and Shoeb Alam also appeared for petitioners.
Ms Guruswamy submitted that police cannot curtail citizens’ movement by disrupting the Metro, put the number detained at about 7,000 with no official figures available, and said opposition leaders were picked up and MPs confined to their homes. Her interim prayers sought notice to the alleged contemnors, including the Home Secretary and a Metro official, and revocation of all prohibitory orders.
The Union’s answer
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court that the habeas corpus petition may not survive because those detained have been released. On the contempt plea, he said there was no curtailment of Metro services on 10 October: a full complement of 4,750 trains ran as scheduled, and of Delhi Metro’s 303 stations, 47 were closed or restricted. The Court noted his assurance that the Metro is functioning fully, that all stations have been open since 10 PM on Saturday, that trains are running normally and that the internet has been restored.
Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai appeared for police officers who said they had been assaulted during the protests. Delhi Police has described the detentions made on the protest day as preventive, citing public safety and traffic management, and the Election Commission has denied wrongdoing in the revision of electoral rolls.
Notice and next steps
The Court issued notice to the alleged contemnors to file their response and a compliance report by Tuesday. Petitions that were mentioned but not yet listed will be tagged with the contempt proceedings, and intervention applications will be listed. No view has been expressed on the merits of the allegations, and the figures of detentions and closures put forward by the two sides differ.
Case Details: Contempt petition of advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi (alleging breach of the order of October 9, 2026 in M.A. Baby v. Union of India), heard with the habeas corpus petition of Menaka Guruswamy (Menaka Guruswamy v. Union of India & Anr., Diary No. 63858/2026), the contempt petition of advocate Aman Prasad and the plea of Manoj Jha. Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India. Date of Hearing: October 11, 2026 (special Sunday sitting). Story developing.
Appearances: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Shadan Farasat, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sanjay Hegde, N. Hariharan and Shoeb Alam, and Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy in person, for the petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Union; Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai for police officers.
