Judge unwell, Supreme Court defers hearing on Delhi protest crackdown till Thursday

The Supreme Court postponed the Delhi protest petitions because Justice V Mohana, a member of the three-judge bench, was unwell. The hearing was moved to Thursday, October 15, so she could recover. The case involves alleged detentions, assaults and restrictions linked to a planned demonstration.

The bench included Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana. Both sides agreed that an adjournment was appropriate. The court also gave Delhi Police and other authorities until Wednesday evening to answer contempt notices linked to alleged disobedience of earlier directions.

The delay does not end the court’s scrutiny. Fresh petitions may also be heard on Thursday if filing defects are corrected. It remains uncertain whether Rahul Gandhi’s separate petition concerning alleged Election Commission irregularities will be heard with this batch.

“Procedure established by law” means that a person’s liberty can be restricted only through a procedure authorised by valid law. Police must have a legal basis for detention and must follow the safeguards and steps that law requires. The phrase does not permit arbitrary action simply because a protest is politically sensitive.

On Sunday, the Supreme Court directed that peaceful, unarmed protesters could not be detained except in accordance with this procedure. The order responded to allegations that people were detained beyond areas covered by prohibitory orders. Petitioners also alleged assault and a curfew-like situation in Delhi.

The phrase therefore sets a limit on police power. Authorities must explain who was detained, how detention occurred and why it was legally justified. The bench ordered affidavits on those points. The court’s continuing review will show whether the stated legal process was actually followed.

The case before the Supreme Court involved around a dozen petitions. They challenged alleged detentions, assaults on protesters and broad restrictions imposed before a demonstration. The bench also faced related requests about lawyers, internet access and movement around the court.

The transport disruption had a precise scale. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said metro services operated normally, but entry and exit were restricted at 45 of the Delhi-NCR network’s 303 stations. The Supreme Court sought details of those stations and asked authorities to explain the restrictions. Petitioners also complained about proposed limits on metro and railway services.

The figures show why the dispute was significant without proving that the entire transport network shut down. The court directed normal metro and railway operations, subject to lawful restrictions. It also ordered free movement to be restored, while allowing restrictions that could be legally justified.

The Supreme Court had issued earlier directions on peaceful protest, transport, internet access and movement. The new contempt notices alleged that Delhi Police and other authorities disobeyed those directions. The court therefore gave them until Wednesday evening to file responses before the matter continued.

The alleged failures included detaining protesters beyond areas covered by prohibitory orders and restricting metro and railway services rather than reconsidering those limits. The bench also required affidavits explaining who was detained, how detention occurred and what legal basis supported the action. These responses are central to deciding whether the earlier order was followed.

If the court finds deliberate or legally significant non-compliance, the contempt proceedings could lead to consequences under the court’s authority. The article does not state that any punishment had been imposed. For now, the immediate next step is the authorities’ written response, followed by further consideration on Thursday.

Protesters and petitioners challenged the alleged detention and manhandling of demonstrators, restrictions on public transport and limits on movement. They also alleged that lawyers, students, women and children had been pushed, shoved or assaulted. The dispute arose before a demonstration over alleged irregularities in the special intensive revision of electoral rolls.

Authorities were accused of creating a curfew-like situation. Petitioners said protesters were detained beyond areas covered by prohibitory orders and that metro and railway services were shut down or heavily restricted. The solicitor general disputed this account, saying metro services ran normally, although entry and exit were restricted at 45 of 303 stations.

The Supreme Court ordered normal metro and railway operations, undisturbed internet connectivity and restored free movement, subject to lawful restrictions. It also directed authorities to remove prohibitory notices around the Supreme Court and other court complexes. The court’s aim was to protect both lawful protest and access to justice.

The Supreme Court can protect access to courts by directing authorities not to obstruct lawyers, court staff, litigants or ordinary movement around court complexes. It can also review police conduct, demand explanations and issue binding directions. In this dispute, those powers were used to keep the court functioning during a politically charged demonstration.

The bench ordered peaceful, unarmed protesters not to be detained except through lawful procedure. It directed metro and railway services to operate normally, internet connectivity to remain undisturbed and free movement to be restored. It also ordered removal of prohibitory notices around the Supreme Court and other court complexes.

The court can reinforce these directions through affidavits and contempt proceedings. It does not treat every restriction as unlawful: the orders remain subject to restrictions permitted by law. Chief Justice Surya Kant also said democratic activities could occur at designated places, but the court must not be drawn into political contest.

A special intensive revision, or SIR, is a focused exercise to review and update electoral rolls. In general, election authorities use such a process to verify entries and correct, add or remove names according to electoral rules. The article identifies SIR as the issue behind the demonstration but does not explain its detailed procedure.

The political groups involved alleged irregularities in the SIR of electoral rolls. That means the dispute concerned whether changes to voter lists were made properly. A change can matter because it may determine whether a person appears on the roll and can participate in an election. The article does not identify specific voters or alleged removals.

The issue became both legal and political because protesters demanded accountability, while Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders separately challenged alleged irregularities in the Election Commission’s functioning. The Supreme Court had not yet said whether that petition would be heard alongside the protest-related cases.