The Supreme Court has issued notice on a habeas corpus petition that seeks relief against the alleged illegal detention of about 7,000 people in Delhi on October 10, while the Union has denied that anyone was illegally detained and called the petition infructuous.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Sunday issued notice on a habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Menaka Guruswamy over the alleged illegal detention of a large number of people in Delhi during the October 10 protests, after the Solicitor General denied that anyone had been illegally detained and submitted that the petition was infructuous because the detenues named had since been released [Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 63858/2026].
The order was passed by a Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana at a special Sunday sitting. The allegations of illegal detention are contested and untested, and the Court has made no finding on them.
The Petitioner’s Case
Addressing the Court on the habeas petition, Dr Guruswamy forcibly contended that the prayer on illegal detention is not restricted to the personalities named in the petition but is a plea against the widespread illegal detention of about 7,000 individuals in the city. Senior counsel also submitted that large numbers of people were subjected to undue harassment and illegal detention even beyond the area covered by the prohibitory order under Section 163 of the BNSS, that the internet was completely shut down, and that the city bore a curfew-like look with transport and free movement of people and goods suspended.
The Union’s Response
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told the Court that the petitions orally mentioned that day had not been served on the Union, so they were unable to assist on the issues in them. On the habeas petition, the Court recorded that Mehta denied that anyone had been illegally detained and contended that the petition is infructuous as the detenues referred to have since been released.
Other counsel who sought to intervene contended that fundamental freedoms must be exercised in a reasonable manner and are subject to reasonable restrictions.
What The Court Ordered
The Bench issued notice in the habeas corpus petition. It also issued notice on the connected contempt petition and directed the unlisted petitions, Diary Nos. 63952/2026, 63943/2026 and 63944/2026, to be served on the office of the Solicitor General during the day and tagged with the present matters. On the question of detention, it recorded the following ad-interim direction:
“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 Court further directed that lawyers, journalists and other professionals shall not be hindered in discharge of their professional duties in any manner whatsoever, noting the Solicitor General’s assurance to the same effect. The matters will next be heard on October 13.
The allegations of illegal detention and harassment are denied by the Union and have not been tested. The Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the directions are interim.
Case Details: Writ Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 63858/2026, heard with Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 63801/2026, Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan. 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, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sanjay Hegde, Shoeb Alam, Shadan Farasat, Monika Gusain and Arundhati Katju, for the petitioners and applicants; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG SV Raju for the Union.
