CEC protests updates: 24-hour mobile internet blackout in central Delhi, Opposition meets president

What restrictions did Delhi authorities impose ahead of the protest at Jantar Mantar?

Delhi authorities imposed broad restrictions before Saturday’s protest demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. The measures targeted gatherings, transport, communications, and movement around central Delhi. Police also warned people against joining the demonstration and threatened legal action for violations.

Section 163 restrictions barred gatherings of four or more people, processions, and road blockades. Police announced the orders near Parliament and visited colleges, mosques, resident welfare associations, and other public places. Mobile internet was to be suspended within four kilometres of the Janpath-Kartavya Path crossing for 24 hours.

Transport was also affected. Some trains were cancelled at their source, and entry and exit gates at 57 metro stations were ordered shut from Friday night. Police coordinated with cab companies to regulate movement toward Lutyens’ Delhi. The Supreme Court later barred a complete closure of metro and rail services, requiring regulated operations instead.

What is Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and how does it limit public gatherings?

Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was the legal provision Delhi Police invoked before the Jantar Mantar demonstration. In this situation, it limited collective public activity by prohibiting gatherings of four or more people, processions, and road blockades.

Police made announcements near Parliament from late Thursday night and warned that violators could face legal action. The restrictions were intended to prevent large assemblies and disruptions around the protest site and nearby government areas. Police also visited colleges, mosques, resident welfare associations, and other public places to discourage participation.

The order affected both protesters and ordinary residents because it applied to gatherings and movement in the city. However, the article does not give the order’s full legal text, duration, or every area covered. The Supreme Court separately required metro and rail services to continue in a suitably regulated manner.

How large were the planned security and transport restrictions, including the number of security personnel, metro stations, and areas affected?

The restrictions were extensive, but the article does not state how many security personnel were deployed. It identifies a four-kilometre radius around the Janpath-Kartavya Path crossing as the mobile-internet restriction zone, covering Jantar Mantar, Connaught Place, and an area with several government offices.

The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation said entry and exit gates at 57 stations would be shut from 9 pm on Friday. Interchange facilities were to remain available, except at New Delhi. Trains scheduled to arrive at New Delhi or Hazrat Nizamuddin between 4 am and 2 pm Saturday were cancelled at source.

Police also imposed gathering and travel restrictions, coordinated with taxi aggregators, and suspended mobile internet for 24 hours. The Supreme Court blocked a complete closure of metro and rail services. It directed authorities to keep them running in a regulated way and publicise the restrictions.

What could happen to commuters, businesses, and protesters because mobile internet, trains, metro stations, and travel routes were restricted?

The restrictions could make travel, communication, and business activity harder across central Delhi. Commuters faced cancelled trains, closed metro entry and exit gates, road congestion, and possible taxi controls. Businesses in Connaught Place and nearby areas could experience reduced customer movement or disrupted mobile connectivity.

Mobile internet was scheduled to stop for 24 hours within a four-kilometre radius of the Janpath-Kartavya Path crossing. Trains arriving at New Delhi or Hazrat Nizamuddin during a specified morning period were cancelled at source. Police also coordinated with Uber and Ola to regulate travel toward Lutyens’ Delhi.

Protesters could find it harder to reach Jantar Mantar, organise, or receive updates. Yet the Supreme Court barred a complete closure of metro and rail services. It required suitably regulated operations, aiming to reduce inconvenience while authorities addressed public-order concerns.

What is a special intensive revision of voter rolls, and why can alleged irregularities in it affect an election?

A special intensive revision of voter rolls is a focused process for checking and updating the lists of registered voters. The article does not describe its detailed procedures. It says the Opposition and protest groups allege irregularities in how this exercise is being conducted and want it scrapped.

Voter rolls determine which people are recorded as eligible to vote. If names are wrongly added, removed, or changed during a revision, eligible voters could face difficulty participating, while inaccurate entries could weaken confidence in the process. These are the concerns underlying the protest, although the article does not establish that such errors occurred.

Opposition leaders raised the issue with President Droupadi Murmu on Friday. Rahul Gandhi said the president asked them to submit evidence and that they would provide it. The dispute could therefore move toward examination of the evidence and continued political protests over the revision.

Why did the Supreme Court require public transport to remain available in a regulated way, and what does the principle of proportionality mean when authorities restrict rights for public order?

The Supreme Court required metro and rail services to remain available because a complete shutdown could cause serious inconvenience to the public. The court said services must function in a suitably regulated manner. It also directed authorities to publicise the restrictions so commuters could plan and avoid confusion.

The issue arose after police sought closure of 57 metro stations and trains were cancelled on routes reaching major Delhi stations. In an urgent hearing, the court considered petitions challenging the restrictions. The Solicitor General assured the bench that authorities would be urged to reconsider closures and train movement.

The principle of proportionality means that public-order measures should not go further than necessary for their purpose. Here, the court accepted regulation as a possible response but rejected complete closure. The approach seeks to balance protest-related security concerns with the public’s need to travel and use essential services.

Key Facts:

📌 Mobile internet was suspended for 24 hours in a four-kilometre central Delhi area.

📌 Police prohibited gatherings of four or more people.

📌 Authorities sought closure of entry and exit gates at 57 metro stations.

📌 Section 163 prohibited gatherings of four or more persons.

📌 The order also prohibited processions and road blockades.

📌 Police warned violators of legal action.

📌 The article gives no number for security personnel.