CJP protests: Supreme Court to hold special Sunday sitting on contempt plea over Delhi Metro shutdowns during protests

The special sitting concerns an alleged conflict between the Supreme Court’s order and transport restrictions imposed in Delhi. The court had directed authorities not to completely prohibit metro and train movement on October 10 during an anti-Chief Election Commissioner protest. A contempt petition claims officials ignored that direction.

The immediate example is Delhi Metro’s decision to close the entry and exit points of 45 stations until 10 pm. The petition also alleges that railway services were cancelled. It names the Union Home Secretary, Delhi Police Commissioner and DMRC chairperson as respondents.

The Sunday hearing will be conducted by Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. The court must consider whether the restrictions amounted to deliberate disobedience. Its earlier comments recognised public-safety powers but warned that citizens should not be unduly harassed. The hearing could clarify how transport controls should operate during protests.

A contempt petition is a legal request asking a court to examine whether someone deliberately disobeyed its order. It matters because court directions are meant to be followed, especially when they protect public access and rights. The petition in this case alleges that authorities disregarded the Supreme Court’s instruction on transport services.

Shailendra Mani Tripathi filed the petition through advocate Chand Qureshi. It names Govind Mohan, the Union Home Secretary; Anurag Kumar, the Delhi Police Commissioner; and D Thara, the DMRC chairperson. The complaint focuses on metro station closures and railway-service cancellations during the protest.

The court will decide whether the alleged conduct justifies contempt proceedings. The article describes the alleged actions as arbitrary and intentional, but the allegations still require judicial consideration. The special Sunday hearing gives the bench an opportunity to compare the authorities’ actions with the precise limits set by the earlier order.

The restrictions affected both metro and train travel connected with movement to Delhi. The article specifically reports that Delhi Metro shut the entry and exit points of 45 stations. That closure was scheduled to remain in effect until 10 pm on Saturday, October 10.

The petition also alleges that railway services were cancelled. It calls both the metro closures and the cancellations unwarranted, arguing that they went beyond what the Supreme Court had allowed. The article does not give a number for cancelled trains or identify every affected route.

The scale matters because the court had rejected a complete prohibition on transport movement. Its earlier order allowed authorities to address unruly movement but required services to remain operational in a regulated manner. The Sunday hearing will examine whether closing 45 stations and cancelling trains crossed that boundary. The article provides no final ruling on the restrictions.

The earlier order required the Centre to ensure that metro services and trains coming to Delhi were not completely stopped on October 10. The direction was issued during a hearing on Friday, before the protest-related transport restrictions took effect. Its purpose was to prevent a total shutdown while recognising the security situation.

The bench said law enforcement agencies could restrict unruly movement. However, those steps had to leave public transport operational in a regulated manner. The court also stressed that citizens should not be unduly harassed. These comments created a distinction between targeted safety controls and a blanket closure.

The later decision to close entrances and exits at 45 metro stations led to the contempt petition. The petitioner argues that the action ignored the court’s limits. The Supreme Court’s Sunday hearing will test whether the authorities’ response complied with the order or amounted to complete prohibition in practice. The article does not report the court’s final conclusion.

A finding of deliberate disobedience would mean the court concluded that officials knowingly failed to follow its transport direction. That could allow the Supreme Court to move forward with contempt proceedings against the respondents named in the petition. Such a finding would also make the alleged conflict between public safety and judicial authority more serious.

The petition asks for action against Govind Mohan, Anurag Kumar and D Thara. It argues that Delhi Metro, Delhi Police and the Union government intentionally disregarded the court’s instruction. The petitioner describes the closures and cancellations as an assault on citizens’ rights, while the court must independently assess those claims.

The article does not state what specific penalty would follow a finding of contempt. It only reports the request for contempt proceedings and the petitioner’s call for firm treatment. The immediate next step is the special Sunday hearing, where the bench will consider the allegations and the authorities’ compliance with the earlier order.

Public safety and freedom of movement can be balanced by using limited, targeted controls during a protest. The Supreme Court said law enforcement agencies have the right to restrict unruly movement. But it also directed that metro and train services should not be completely prohibited.

The key mechanism is regulated operation rather than a blanket shutdown. Authorities could restrict particular movements linked to safety concerns while keeping transport available. The order also required officials to avoid unduly harassing citizens. In this case, the reported closure of entrances and exits at 45 stations became controversial because it appeared broader than the court’s permitted approach.

The Sunday hearing will consider whether those measures stayed within the order’s limits. The article does not identify alternative routes, station-by-station criteria or other operational details. Its central principle is clear: security steps may be taken, but they must not bring all public transport to a halt or unnecessarily burden citizens.

Court orders limit government power by setting binding rules for official action. Fundamental rights add another safeguard by protecting citizens from unnecessary interference. In this case, the Supreme Court said authorities could respond to unruly movement but could not simply bring all metro and train services to a halt.

That principle matters because public transport affects ordinary movement during a politically sensitive protest. The court’s October 9 direction required transport to remain available in a regulated manner. Yet Delhi Metro later closed the entry and exit points of 45 stations, and the petition alleged railway cancellations as well. Those events prompted the contempt challenge.

The special hearing will examine whether the restrictions respected the court’s order and citizens’ rights. A ruling could reinforce the difference between proportionate safety measures and complete service closures. The article does not report the outcome, but the case places judicial compliance and public access at the centre of the dispute.