Response to allegations of illegal detention, clampdown ready, but needs fine-tuning: Government

The government’s response addresses petitions alleging illegal detentions and shutdowns of public and rail transport, including Metro service, in Delhi on October 10. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the affidavit was final in substance but needed to become more comprehensive. The reply matters because it will present the Centre’s account of events and answer the allegations before the petitions are considered further.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant extended the filing deadline to Thursday, October 15, 2026. At the petitioners’ request, the Court also asked the government to share the affidavit, if possible, on October 14. That would give petitioners’ lawyers time to study its contents before the hearing.

The October 15 hearing is intended to be meaningful and comprehensive. It may cover the original petitions, contempt requests, fresh pleas about police action against journalists, and claims involving students and detainees. The Court also asked petitioners to cure filing defects in the fresh petitions.

The main allegations concern police conduct during protests on October 10 and 11, 2026. Media organisations say journalists were unlawfully detained, forcibly removed, physically assaulted, manhandled, intimidated, and excluded from places where public power was being exercised. They also allege that police disregarded press credentials and continued acting against journalists despite an October 11 Supreme Court order.

The claims extend beyond reporters. A petition alleges brutality against detained people and says women were detained after 6 p.m. without a report or permission. Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan said documentary proof existed of students being abused in police stations. Advocate Fidel Tom separately said he was assaulted inside a police station.

The organisations describe the conduct as an asserted course of police action rather than isolated obstruction. The Supreme Court agreed to urgently hear pleas seeking an independent probe and contempt proceedings. It asked petitioners to cure defects so the matters could be heard comprehensively on October 15.

A reply affidavit is a formal written statement made on oath or affirmation by a party responding to a petition or another filing. It normally addresses the claims paragraph by paragraph, states which facts are accepted or disputed, and explains the party’s legal position. In this case, the Union government is preparing an affidavit responding to allegations about detentions, transport shutdowns, and police conduct.

The affidavit gives the Supreme Court a structured account from the government. It can include facts, documents, explanations, and objections to the relief sought by petitioners. The Solicitor General said the prepared response was ready but needed more comprehensive wording. That indicates the Centre wanted its answer to cover the issues fully before filing.

Once filed, the affidavit becomes part of the court record. Sharing it with petitioners before the hearing allows their lawyers to examine the government’s claims and prepare a response. It helps the Court conduct a focused hearing rather than requiring lawyers to react without adequate notice.

The Supreme Court asked the government to share its affidavit before the hearing so petitioners’ lawyers could study its contents. The Centre’s response concerns serious allegations, including illegal detentions, transport shutdowns, and police action against journalists. Without advance access, lawyers would have less opportunity to verify facts, identify disputed points, and prepare replies.

The request followed the petitioners’ submission that the affidavit should be shared, if possible, by October 14, one day before the hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said the affidavit was ready but needed more fine-tuning to make it comprehensive. The Court accepted the practical value of early disclosure.

This step supports an effective hearing. Lawyers can organise documents, challenge explanations, and address new claims directly. The Court said the aim was for the hearing on Thursday, October 15, to be meaningful. That hearing may bring several related petitions together, including contempt and independent-probe requests.

A complete official list should contain enough detail to test whether each detention followed legal procedure. The petition specifically seeks every person detained or arrested on October 10 and 11, 2026. It asks for the time, place, and ground of detention, the responsible officers, the custody location, and the time of release.

The list should also record whether an arrest memo was prepared, whether the person received the grounds of arrest, and whether a relative was informed. These details connect the person’s detention to the stated reason and responsible authority. They also create a record that can be checked against custody registers, station records, medical documents, and court production records.

Such information would help the Supreme Court identify patterns rather than examine vague totals. It could reveal unexplained arrests, missing records, excessive detention, or failures to notify families. The petition asks for this information because the legality of the alleged detentions is a central issue before the Court.

As a general rule under Article 22(2) of India’s Constitution and criminal-procedure law, an arrested person must be brought before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours. The journey from the place of arrest to the magistrate is excluded from that calculation. Detention beyond that period generally requires judicial authorisation, subject to specific legal exceptions.

Safeguards normally include telling the person the grounds of arrest, preparing an arrest memo, informing a relative or friend, and allowing access to legal assistance. The person should also receive medical examination and protection from unnecessary force or mistreatment. The exact procedure can vary with the type of case, but authorities must follow the applicable law.

These safeguards create accountability around custody. They help the person challenge an arrest, alert family members, and bring detention under judicial supervision. The article does not state the 24-hour rule itself, but the petitions’ requests for arrest grounds, officers, custody places, release times, and family information relate directly to these protections.

Journalists often document protests, arrests, dispersals, and crowd-control operations. If police remove or intimidate them, the public may lose independent accounts of what officials did. The petitions say that disregarding credentials and treating observation as participation filters the record through the same authority whose conduct needs scrutiny.

The article gives a clear mechanism. Physical handling, detention, or forcible removal can stop a reporter from approaching, observing, questioning, recording, and reporting. The petitions warn that the immediate chilling effect may make journalists retreat. Evidence can disappear, and public knowledge can contract. Women journalists may also face harms to dignity, bodily integrity, personal liberty, and equal professional participation.

The wider consequence concerns democratic accountability, not only individual safety. A free press helps society examine public power, especially during conflict and arrests. The Supreme Court agreed to urgently hear pleas about continued police action against journalists, including women media professionals. That hearing may determine how these allegations are examined and whether further proceedings follow.