Delhi HC seeks Centre’s response on SOPs to regulate protests, lists plea for Friday

The Delhi High Court is considering whether protests should be regulated through Standard Operating Procedures, or SOPs. The petitioners say demonstrations demanding the CEC’s resignation have disrupted traffic, businesses and professional work. They want clear, enforceable rules that protect peaceful protest while preventing blockades and disorder.

On Tuesday, a bench led by acting chief justice Nitin Sambre and justice Sanjay Sharma asked additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma to seek instructions from the Centre. The petition was filed by advocate Rishabh Saxena, a traders’ body and street vendor Santosh Kushwaha. They urged that demonstrations be held at designated sites and follow existing conditions.

The court listed the matter for Friday because the Centre needed time to obtain instructions and state its position. Other related pleas were also heard, including challenges involving Jantar Mantar and alleged assaults during the October 10 protest. The Friday hearing may clarify the government’s response, but the article does not state what decision will follow.

Standard Operating Procedures are step-by-step rules for managing demonstrations. In this case, they would provide a consistent framework for police, protesters and authorities. The aim is to protect the right to demonstrate while reducing disruption to traffic, businesses, offices and public services.

The petition cites a Supreme Court direction requiring the Commissioner of Police to create a regulatory mechanism. The resulting conditions reportedly prohibit protesters from blocking traffic, office gates and arterial roads. Petitioners also asked the High Court to direct that demonstrations take place at designated sites, rather than spreading into surrounding roads or sensitive public areas.

These rules could shape where protests occur, how long they continue and how marches are managed. The article does not list every proposed SOP or explain their final legal form. The Centre’s instructions, sought for Friday, will help determine how authorities approach the requested framework and whether further court directions are issued.

The petitioners argued that demonstrations were no longer confined to protest spaces and were affecting everyday activity. They said business operations, professional work and traffic were being disrupted. Their concern was that people could not reliably reach workplaces, offices or commercial areas when gatherings occupied roads and traffic islands.

Rishabh Saxena described encountering people occupying the carriageway and central traffic island near the Mandi House roundabout on October 12. The petition also cited sit-ins at Jantar Mantar, attempted marches towards Parliament and gatherings spilling onto surrounding roads. Another petition raised alleged disruptions involving Metro stations and railway services.

The article reports that 45 Metro stations were closed and many long-distance trains to Delhi were cancelled during the October 10 security response. It also mentions suspended internet services near Jantar Mantar. These events show the dispute’s wider effects, although the article presents several claims through petitions and reports rather than as findings finally decided by the court.

The October 10 security response was exceptionally large. The article describes Delhi as being turned into a fortress to stop a planned protest demanding the CEC’s resignation. The measures affected people far beyond the protest site, including commuters, rail passengers, journalists and bystanders.

Security personnel detained 7,000 people, suspended internet services near Jantar Mantar and closed 45 Metro stations. Many long-distance trains to Delhi were cancelled. Authorities also installed thousands of yellow barricades, used spike strips on arterial roads and broadcast repeated police warnings through loudspeakers. The article says right-wing groups also assaulted many protesters.

Conditions eased somewhat on Sunday. Metro stations reopened, trains returned to service and some roads were opened. Still, protesters who passed barricades were detained, and allegations of police brutality followed. Journalists and bystanders were also picked up, creating controversy. The figures underline how public-order measures themselves disrupted transport and movement across central Delhi.

The ruling in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India is central to the petitioners’ argument. According to the article, the Supreme Court directed the Commissioner of Police to formulate a regulatory mechanism for protests. The purpose was to manage demonstrations through clear conditions rather than leave their effects entirely unregulated.

The petition says binding conditions followed that direction. They included prohibitions on blocking traffic, office gates and arterial roads. Petitioners argue that lengthy sit-ins, marches towards Parliament and gatherings spilling onto surrounding roads conflict with those conditions. They want the Delhi High Court to ensure that the mechanism is implemented in practice.

The dispute is therefore about enforcement as well as protest rights. Petitioners point to 82 major agitations at Jantar Mantar between January 2022 and October 12, 2026, and rising reported protest numbers. The High Court has asked the Centre for instructions, but the article does not say whether it has found any violation or ordered a new mechanism.

The Delhi High Court is deciding several connected challenges. The Centre must provide instructions on SOPs. Police and security authorities manage demonstrations and are accused in petitions of failing to prevent disruption or allowing alleged assaults. Protesters are demanding the CEC’s resignation and seeking space to demonstrate.

Rishabh Saxena, a traders’ body and street vendor Santosh Kushwaha want rules enforced so traffic, businesses and offices are not obstructed. NSUI president Vinod Jhakhar seeks an SIT investigation into alleged assaults during the October 10 protest. Advocate Anshika Tripathi challenges the closure of Jantar Mantar and raises concerns about transport disruption.

The Supreme Court is already handling a petition on the same issue, so the High Court asked Tripathi to produce those papers. In Jhakhar’s case, the Centre may file preliminary objections about whether the petition is maintainable. The High Court listed the SOP plea for Friday after seeking the Centre’s instructions.

Indian constitutional law protects freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. These rights are not unlimited. The Constitution permits reasonable restrictions, including measures linked to public order. Authorities may therefore regulate the place, route, timing and manner of a protest when necessary to protect traffic, workplaces, public services and other people’s access.

The article illustrates this balance through the Supreme Court’s direction that the Commissioner of Police create a regulatory mechanism. Conditions reportedly prohibit blocking traffic, office gates and arterial roads. Petitioners say protests at Jantar Mantar have included long sit-ins, attempted marches and gatherings spilling onto roads. Their argument is that regulation can protect access without ending protest altogether.

The October 10 response shows the competing risk. Detentions, 45 Metro closures, cancelled trains and internet suspension protected against a planned protest but also disrupted public life. Courts must examine whether restrictions are lawful, necessary and proportionate. The article does not provide a final ruling on that balance in these current petitions.