Bleeding protesters, detained journalists: New Delhi sees fresh chaos despite SC order

New Delhi police continued detaining people after the Supreme Court ordered that peaceful, unarmed protesters could not be held except through lawful procedure. The action mattered because the court had issued its directions specifically after allegations of mass detentions and movement restrictions.

More than 70 people were held outside the Press Club of India. Journalists from a national daily and digital news platforms, along with camera persons, were detained at several locations. One Connaught Place bus carried two journalists and at least two protesters who were bruised and bleeding. About 100 protesters were placed in two buses.

The detentions continued as groups protested against the Election Commission and demanded Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. AISA president Neha Bora and CPI(M) leader John Brittas were also detained, with Brittas injured after being dragged by security personnel. The events showed a sharp conflict between police restrictions and the court’s stated protections.

The Supreme Court’s order set limits on how authorities could respond to peaceful protests. It said peaceful, unarmed protesters could be detained only in accordance with the “procedure established by law.” This means police action could not rest solely on broad claims that a protest was inconvenient or unwanted.

The court also limited the geographic reach of detention. Police could not hold peaceful protesters beyond the area covered by a prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. In the same sitting, the court directed authorities to restore free movement and keep metro and railway services operating normally.

The order came after petitions alleged mass detentions, movement restrictions, suspended internet services, and non-compliance with an earlier October 9 order. Yet detentions continued on Sunday, including journalists, protesters, AISA president Neha Bora, and CPI(M) leader John Brittas. The gap between the order and events became central to the reported chaos.

A prohibitory order under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is a legal direction restricting certain gatherings or actions in a specified area. It is generally used when authorities believe an immediate public-order problem could arise. The restriction can set limits on assembling, moving, or carrying particular items, depending on the order.

Its key mechanism is geographic and legal. Police may enforce the restriction inside the area named in the order. The Supreme Court said peaceful, unarmed protesters could not be detained beyond the area covered by such an order. The article also says authorities imposed restrictions across Delhi and placed notices around the Supreme Court and other court complexes.

The court’s directions were intended to preserve lawful protest while preventing authorities from using a restricted zone as a reason for unlimited detention. In this case, the practical question was whether police actions stayed within the order’s boundaries and followed the required legal procedure.

The scale of the Delhi crackdown was unusually large. About 41,000 security personnel were deployed across the Capital to stop a planned protest against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Police detained about 7,000 people on Saturday, including politicians, students, lawyers, and four former chief ministers.

Transport infrastructure was also drawn into the response. Authorities controversially closed 45 Metro stations, described in the article as the largest closure this year. Police blocked routes with thousands of yellow barricades, used spike strips on arterial roads, and detained people heading toward the protest. These measures helped prevent passage to Jantar Mantar.

The pressure did not end the demonstrations. Sporadic protests appeared at different points, and the Cockroach Janta Party announced a second consecutive day of protests. On Sunday, more than 70 people were held outside the Press Club of India, while about 100 protesters were removed from Connaught Place in two buses. The Supreme Court then ordered normal transport operations.

The restrictions disrupted ordinary life across Delhi. Many trains to the city were cancelled, internet services were suspended near Jantar Mantar, and 45 Metro stations were closed. Thousands of yellow barricades choked traffic, while spike strips were placed on arterial roads. Large parts of the Capital became deserted.

Movement toward the protest was blocked from early Saturday. Police began detaining people at 1am, used loudspeakers to broadcast prerecorded warnings, and refused passage to Jantar Mantar. Authorities had earlier denied permission for the demonstration. The restrictions also affected access around the Supreme Court and other court complexes.

The Supreme Court ordered metro and railway services to operate normally, internet connectivity to remain undisturbed, and free movement to be restored. It also directed officials to remove a prohibitory notice around the courts so people could have unhindered “access to justice.” The article reports that detentions and protests continued despite these directions.

The protesters were seeking the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. Their stated reason was alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision, or SIR, of electoral rolls. The article does not describe the specific alleged irregularities or identify which entries were affected.

Electoral-roll revision generally means reviewing voter lists and adding eligible voters, correcting details, or removing entries that no longer qualify. A “special intensive” revision usually involves a more thorough, often targeted verification than routine updates. This explanation uses established election practice; the article itself only identifies SIR as a revision of electoral rolls.

The issue became the focus of protests by the Cockroach Janta Party and other groups. Authorities denied permission for the stir, while police detained thousands and blocked access to Jantar Mantar. The protests continued into Sunday, including action at Connaught Place and Raisina Road. The article does not report a response from Kumar to the allegations.

Electoral rolls are the official lists used to identify eligible voters. They normally contain details needed to verify a person’s right to vote in a particular area. The article refers to the Special Intensive Revision of these rolls, but it does not define electoral rolls or explain the revision’s procedures.

Accurate lists matter because eligible voters need to appear correctly to cast their ballots. Regular, fair updating can add newly eligible citizens, correct mistakes, and remove entries that no longer belong. It can also reduce confusion at polling places. These points are established election knowledge rather than details supplied by the article.

Fairness is essential because changes to voter lists can affect who participates. If updates are inaccurate, eligible people may be excluded, while duplicate or ineligible entries may weaken trust. In this case, protesters alleged irregularities in the SIR and demanded Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation. The article reports the allegation but gives no independent finding about whether irregularities occurred.