The Supreme Court’s written order from its special Sunday sitting sets out six ad-interim directions on Metro and rail services, free movement, barricades, internet, illegal detention, the Section 163 notice board near the Court, and the professional duties of lawyers and journalists.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Taking note of the Solicitor General’s assurances, the Supreme Court on Sunday directed that Metro trains and railway facilities function normally, that internet facilities function unhindered, that there be no illegal detention of peaceful, unarmed gatherings beyond the area where Section 163 of the BNSS operates, and that the notice board on Section 163 near the Court be taken down forthwith [Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan].
The ad-interim directions were issued by a Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana in a contempt petition and a habeas corpus petition over the October 10 protests in Delhi. They are interim in nature, rest on submissions that the Union disputes in part, and carry no finding on the merits.
Why Interim Relief Was Sought
Counsel for the petitioners urged ad-interim reliefs on the smooth operation of the Metro, traffic, internet services and free movement of people, especially lawyers, journalists and other professionals. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted, on instructions, that internet facilities had been restored and all Metro stations were fully functional, and assured the Court that lawyers, journalists and other professionals would not be impeded in discharging their professional duties. The Court recorded these submissions before issuing the directions.
The Directions
“(a) Metro trains and railway facilities shall function normally until and unless they need to be regulated keeping in mind reasonable restrictions envisaged under Article 19(2).”
“(b) Similarly, free movement of people in the city shall be ensured subject to law and order situation and/or traffic regulations. Imposition of barricades on roads shall be reviewed forthwith to ensure free movement subject to law and order and traffic requirements.”
“(c) Internet facilities should function unhindered.”
“(d) There shall be no illegal detention, particularly in cases of peaceful unarmed assemblage of people beyond the area where Section 163 BNSS is in operation.”
The Notice Board Near The Court
The Bench recorded that it had been informed that a notice board stating that Section 163 BNSS had been invoked had been put up in and around the Court premises. The Solicitor General had sought time to seek instructions on this point. The order directs:
“(e) We have been informed that a notice board stating Section 163 BNSS has been invoked in and around the precincts of the Supreme Court has been put up in the Court premises. We direct the authorities concerned to forthwith take down the said board, if not already done, so that there is no apprehension with regard to ingress and egress to the Supreme Court or any other court of law.”
Lawyers, Journalists And Professionals
“(f) Lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever.”
The Bench also issued notice to the alleged contemnors, called for a counter affidavit and compliance report on its October 9 order by October 13, and listed the matters on that date along with three other petitions mentioned in Court and the intervention and impleadment applications.
ALSO READ: BREAKING | SCBA Urges CJI Surya Kant To Intervene Over Detention Of Advocates Near Supreme Court
The Union disputes the allegations of contempt and illegal detention, which are untested. The directions are interim and the Court has expressed no view on the merits.
Case Details: Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan, Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 63801/2026, with Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 63858/2026. Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana. Order dated October 11, 2026. Next hearing: October 13, 2026.
Appearances: Dr Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, KK Venugopal, N Hariharan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Shoeb Alam, Sanjay Hegde, Shadan Farasat, Monika Gusain and Arundhati Katju, and Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi in person, for the petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG SV Raju for the respondents.