Section 163 BNSS Prohibitory Orders in and around the Supreme Court were never lifted, the Court has said, after finding that its October 11 direction on the notice board was being misconstrued and “misused by certain elements”. The notice can now go back up, provided lawyers and litigants can still move freely.
New Delhi: The direction to take down a notice board in its premises was meant only to keep the way into the courts open, the Supreme Court has clarified, recalling paragraph 16(e) of its October 11 order and holding that nothing in it ever stayed, suspended or diluted any Section 163 BNSS Prohibitory Orders under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), so the notice can be displayed afresh [M A Baby v. Union of India & Ors.].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed the order on November 3, 2026. It was hearing a batch of 33 writ and contempt petitions arising out of the prohibitory orders and restrictions imposed in Delhi in October 2026 in connection with a protest proposed at Jantar Mantar on October 10 against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, and the events that followed.
An access direction, not a lifting of orders
The Bench began by spelling out what the earlier direction was for:
“The said direction was issued for the limited purpose of securing unhindered ingress to and egress from this Court and other Courts of law. Its object was to ensure that access to justice was not impeded, and that no Advocate, litigant, or person visiting an Advocate for professional consultation, was obstructed or deterred. It did not stay, suspend or otherwise dilute any prohibitory order issued under Section 163 of the BNSS, the validity whereof is the subject matter of W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 427/2026 and 429/2026, pending before us.”
The reason for coming back to it, the Court recorded, was how the direction was being read outside:
“It has been brought to our notice that the said direction is being misconstrued, and is being misused by certain elements, as though it had lifted the prohibitory order(s) in the Supreme Court premises.”
The recall followed in these words:
“We, therefore, recall paragraph 16(e) of our order dated 11.10.2026 and clarify that nothing contained therein shall preclude the Competent Authority from displaying the notice afresh, subject to the condition that the free movement of Advocates, litigants and other persons having business before this Court, or any other Court, is properly regulated and not obstructed in any manner.”
Where the notice board came from
Paragraph 16(e) of the October 11, 2026 order, passed in what is now Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 844/2026, had noted that a notice board stating that Section 163 BNSS had been invoked in and around the Court’s precincts was in place in the premises. The Court had directed the authorities to take it down “so that there is no apprehension with regard to ingress and egress to the Supreme Court or any other court of law.”
Eleven categories for 33 petitions
Under its October 15 order, the Court had named Advocate Aarthi Rajan Nodal Counsel for the petitioners and Advocate Bhuvan Kapoor Nodal Counsel for the respondents, asking them to group the cases so that one comprehensive counter affidavit could be filed for each group. Both sides filed categorisations dated November 3. The Bench found them identical in substance, except that the petitioners treated the petitions concerning women journalists and police personnel as separate categories. The Court placed them under one head with two sub-categories.
The matters now sit in eleven categories: the main writ petition and contempt petitions; the challenge to the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site; detention and removal; restrictions on protests, including the challenges to the Section 163 BNSS orders; journalists; women journalists and police personnel; lawyers; regulation of protests; habeas corpus; the challenge to the vires of Section 172 BNSS; and surveillance.
Each category will be heard on its own. The respondents may file a separate counter affidavit for each, and counsel within a category are to coordinate through the Nodal Counsel, give advance time estimates for oral arguments and avoid repeating submissions.
Dates fixed for each group
- The main writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 1333/2026, and the contempt petitions will be heard on November 18, 2026. Copies of three contempt petitions are to be supplied to the office of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who may file a common response.
- The challenge to the de-notification of Jantar Mantar as a protest site is listed on November 20, 2026.
- The detention and removal petitions are listed on November 25, 2026.
- The petitions on restrictions on protests, along with W.P.(Crl.) Nos. 427/2026 and 429/2026 challenging the Section 163 BNSS orders, and the journalists’ petitions will be heard on November 26, 2026. Notice was issued in a fresh journalists’ petition, W.P.(C) No. 1373/2026.
- The Union of India was directed to file its counter affidavit in the women journalists’ petition the same day, with any rejoinder by November 18. The matter is posted on November 23, 2026.
- Notice was issued in W.P.(C) No. 1395/2026, a petition seeking regulation of protests, returnable on November 18, with the petitioners directed to implead all the protesting organisations against whom allegations have been made.
- The challenge to Section 172 BNSS is listed on December 4, 2026, and the petition concerning police personnel and the lawyers’ petitions on November 30, 2026. Notice was also issued in the surveillance petition, W.P.(C) No. 1406/2026.
The petitioners have alleged excesses in the police handling of the protests and have questioned the prohibitory orders, while the respondents, led by the Solicitor General, are contesting the petitions. The Court has not ruled on the merits of any of these claims, and the validity of the Section 163 BNSS orders remains pending before it.
Why the order matters
Two things that had been blurred in public discussion are now kept apart: access to the courts, and the prohibitory orders themselves. The October direction protected the first. Taking down a notice board so that advocates and litigants are not deterred from reaching the Court is not the same as suspending an order under Section 163 BNSS, which can only be tested in the pending challenges. With paragraph 16(e) recalled, there is no basis left for reading the Court’s earlier words as a judicial lifting of the restrictions.
The regrouping matters in practical terms too. A batch of 33 matters, running from contempt to habeas corpus to the constitutionality of Section 172 BNSS, now moves on separate tracks with separate counter affidavits and fixed dates, which should let each set of issues, including the legality of the prohibitory orders, be heard on its own terms.
Case Title: M A Baby v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 1333/2026] with Contempt Petition (C) No. 844/2026 and connected matters
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Nodal Counsel Aarthi Rajan for the petitioners and Bhuvan Kapoor for the respondents; Senior Advocates including Kapil Sibal, Indira Jaising, Mukul Rohatgi, Chander Uday Singh, Menaka Guruswamy and Gaurav Bhatia appeared for various petitioners; Solicitor General Tushar Mehta with ASGs S.V. Raju, Aishwarya Bhati and K.M. Nataraj for the Union.
