Protests kept 2.6 million commuters off Metro; 258 stations fully operational, DMRC tells SC

The DMRC told the Supreme Court that Metro train services continued normally on October 10, even though protests led to restrictions at some stations. It said the network did not stop operating and that all scheduled trips were completed. This mattered because the court was examining claims that authorities had defied its direction to keep public transport running.

The corporation reported that 271 trains were inducted into service. Together, they operated all 4,157 scheduled trips across the network. Entry and exit gates were restricted at 45 of the 303 stations, but the remaining stations continued operating. Interchange facilities also remained available at 14 affected stations.

The DMRC said ridership still fell sharply, from about 5.8 million passengers on a normal second Saturday to roughly 3.2 million. It attributed the decline to protests that discouraged people from travelling. The restrictions were publicised through announcements, signs, social media, the website and the Sarthi app, and were lifted at 10pm.

The Delhi Metro network had 303 stations on October 10. Of these, 258 remained fully operational and accessible to commuters. Entry and exit gates were restricted at the other 45 stations after directions from the Delhi Police. The figures show that most of the network continued functioning despite the protest-related security measures.

The original police communication had proposed restrictions at 57 stations. That number fell to 45 after the Supreme Court intervened on October 9 and authorities reassessed security requirements. At 14 of the affected stations, interchange facilities continued without interruption. These included major hubs such as Rajiv Chowk, Kashmere Gate and Central Secretariat.

The DMRC said the entire network, except the 45 stations named in the modified notification, remained fully functional throughout the day. Restrictions were not described as a complete transport ban. Passenger exits were facilitated at some stations, and the restrictions were lifted from 10pm on October 10.

Metro ridership fell by nearly 45% on October 10 because many commuters chose not to travel during the protests. The DMRC said the demonstrations appeared to make people abandon usual activities, including going to work or conducting business. The decline therefore reflected reduced demand and public reluctance, rather than a stoppage of train services.

About 3.2 million passengers used the Metro that day. On a normal second Saturday, ridership was approximately 5.8 million. At the same time, the DMRC said it ran all 4,157 scheduled trips using 271 trains. This distinction was central to its response to allegations that public transport had been shut down.

Restrictions at 45 stations may also have affected convenience, even though 258 stations stayed fully operational. The DMRC said it provided announcements, signs, online notices and staff guidance. Since restrictions were lifted at 10pm, the immediate operational limits ended that night, while the sharp ridership decline demonstrated the broader effect of the protests.

A contempt proceeding is a court process used when someone may have disobeyed or undermined a judicial order. In this case, the Supreme Court was examining whether senior authorities had breached its direction concerning public transport. The proceedings did not establish guilt; the court issued notices after finding a prima facie case, meaning the allegations warranted a response.

The dispute concerned restrictions announced before a protest at Jantar Mantar. The court was told that official directions contemplated stopping or cancelling Metro services and some trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin stations. On October 9, the court clarified that Metro and other rail services should not be outright prohibited.

The DMRC responded that trains continued operating and all scheduled trips ran. It said restrictions were limited to entry and exit at 45 stations and were based on police security assessments. The Union home secretary, Delhi police commissioner and DMRC chairperson were directed to file responses and compliance reports.

Before the Supreme Court intervened, authorities’ directions were understood to contemplate stopping or cancelling Metro services and several trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin stations. The court’s October 9 order rejected an outright prohibition on movement. It required regulated operations and wide publicity so passengers would not be unnecessarily inconvenienced.

The order also changed the station plan. Police had initially proposed restrictions at 57 Metro stations. After the court’s intervention and a further security reassessment, the number was reduced to 45. At those stations, entry or exit gates were restricted, while the other 258 stations remained fully operational. Interchanges continued at 14 affected stations.

The DMRC said the revised arrangement preserved train movement across the network. It operated all 4,157 scheduled trips with 271 trains. The episode left authorities balancing security controls with the court’s insistence that public transport remain available, clearly communicated and not completely shut down.

Police may limit entry or exit at selected stations when a large protest creates heightened security concerns around particular locations. The article describes the protest at Jantar Mantar and says restrictions followed law-enforcement assessments. A targeted approach can focus controls where officials consider them necessary, rather than closing the entire Metro network.

On October 10, 45 stations had restricted gates, but 258 remained fully operational. Passenger exits were still facilitated at some affected stations. At Vishwavidyalaya, exit gates remained open because entry and exit gates were physically separate. At GTB Nagar, staff manually regulated movement and kept Gate No. 3 open for exits.

This arrangement allowed trains to keep moving while limiting access at sensitive stations. The DMRC also deployed extra staff and ground marshals, issued announcements and displayed signs. The court’s order required regulated operations, not an outright ban. The restrictions ended at 10pm, showing how controls could be temporary and geographically limited.

Governments must protect public safety during protests while preserving people’s ability to travel, work and conduct business. The article shows why this balance matters: security agencies sought controls at selected stations, but the Supreme Court warned against an outright ban on Metro and railway movement. Public transport remained an essential service for ordinary citizens.

A balanced approach uses limited, evidence-based restrictions rather than shutting the network. On October 10, 45 stations had restricted entry or exit, while 258 remained accessible. Trains still completed all 4,157 scheduled trips. Exits were facilitated at Vishwavidyalaya and GTB Nagar, and interchange continued at 14 affected stations.

Governments must also explain changes clearly. The DMRC used announcements, signs, social media, its website and the Sarthi app. These steps can reduce confusion and help commuters plan. The court’s direction for regulated operations and wide publicity points toward temporary, targeted measures that protect security without unnecessarily cutting off movement.