SC tells government to follow the law on protests – but it still hasn’t asked what the law permits

The Supreme Court directed authorities to protect movement and lawful civic activity during the protests. People were to move freely, subject to traffic rules. Barricades in Delhi had to be reviewed. Internet services were to remain undisturbed, subject to law. Detention was allowed only through procedure established by law.

The court also said peaceful assembly should be permitted in accordance with law. Lawyers, journalists and others were not to be impeded while performing their professional duties. These directions addressed both public access and the ability to observe, report on and legally challenge state action.

The court issued notice to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and DMRC chairperson D Thara. It sought their counter-affidavit and compliance report by October 13. The article notes that many restrictions nevertheless remained in place.

The restrictions reached transport, communications and personal liberty before and during the protest. Police asked the Delhi Metro to close 57 stations from 9 pm on Friday until conditions normalised. The railways also cancelled more than 250 mail and express trains due to arrive in Delhi that day.

The Metro ultimately ran its full Saturday schedule, according to the Solicitor General, but entry and exit were restricted at 45 of its 303 stations. Mobile internet was reportedly suspended from 10 pm on Friday within four kilometres of the Janpath-Kartavya Path crossing in Central Delhi.

Detentions accompanied these measures. Reports citing Delhi Police gave figures ranging from 2,500 to more than 3,000. Counsel told the court the number was about 7,000. More than a dozen journalists were detained, along with political leaders, protesters and others.

The right to protest matters only when people can actually exercise it. If transport is restricted, public spaces are barricaded, or organisers and journalists are detained beforehand, a constitutional guarantee may remain on paper but disappear in practice. The state then controls whether the right can exist at all.

The article gives a practical example. Leaders were detained when they landed at Delhi airport, while other protesters and journalists were held. A senior advocate said he was thrown into a moving bus. Some people named in a habeas corpus petition were reportedly detained around 2 pm and released around 6 pm.

That timing creates a serious review problem. A detention lasting only a few hours may end before a court can hear it. The article therefore stresses that legal protection must operate when the protest is being exercised, not only after restrictions have already taken effect.

Habeas corpus is a legal remedy against detention. It requires the state to bring a detained person before a court and explain the legal basis for holding that person. The remedy protects liberty by making detention answerable to judicial scrutiny rather than leaving the state’s decision unexamined.

In the article, TMC MP and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy filed a habeas corpus petition for Mamata Banerjee and others. Banerjee had been taken from outside a colleague’s home after Trinamool Congress leaders were detained. The petition sought a court response to those detentions.

The Solicitor General said most people named had been picked up around 2 pm and released around 6 pm. He argued the petition might therefore no longer survive. This illustrates the difficulty: detention can end before a court examines whether it was lawful, necessary or properly justified.

The article leaves the central legal question open: what power permits the state to stop a protest before it begins? It records refusals, transport restrictions and detentions, but does not name the statutory provision or order used to authorise them. That omission matters because executive convenience alone cannot replace legal authority.

As a matter of established Indian law, the constitutional right to assemble peacefully is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law, including for public order. Movement can also be regulated under lawful traffic or public-safety powers. Those powers must be exercised by the competent authority and within their stated limits.

The court therefore needs to identify the precise source of each restriction and test its use against the facts. It should ask whether the measure addressed a real lawful concern, was connected to that concern, and went no further than necessary. The article says this answer remains unresolved.

The constitutional right to assemble peacefully is not absolute. Established Indian law permits reasonable restrictions imposed by law for recognised purposes, especially public order. Authorities may also regulate movement under lawful traffic powers. These limits are meant to balance assembly with safety and the rights of others, not to make protest permission depend entirely on official preference.

The article records several restrictions: police refused permission for a gathering of 100 to 150 people at Jantar Mantar, asked the Metro to close 57 stations, and transport disruption followed. The Supreme Court described the Metro closure and train cancellations as overreaching, while the High Court scheduled the permission dispute for after the planned protest.

A public-order or traffic claim should therefore be specific and evidence-based. Authorities should explain the risk, use the least disruptive lawful measure, and preserve peaceful assembly where possible. The article shows why timing matters: a later hearing may come too late.

Restrictions on protest should be justified with more than a general claim of disorder or inconvenience. The state should identify the legal source of its power, the specific risk it seeks to address, and the evidence supporting that risk. It should also explain why the chosen restriction is necessary and why less severe measures would not suffice.

The article highlights the gap between an assurance and an order. On Friday, the court recorded that the Solicitor General would impress upon authorities to reassess closures and said a prudent decision might allow regulated operations. It fixed no station limit and sought a report in four days. By Sunday, restrictions had already occurred.

Courts should decide promptly, before a protest passes, and examine whether each measure is lawful, connected to the stated aim, necessary and proportionate. They should also consider duration, geographic reach and less restrictive options. The article says the right must be protected at the moment it is exercised.