Protests erupted in Delhi on Oct. 10 and 11 after youth groups and political parties demanded the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over his handling of the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Demonstrators faced mass detentions, and several journalists and lawyers reported assaults.
At least 15 petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court in connection with the October 10 protests and detention of those who were out on streets, including writ petitions, contempt proceedings, habeas corpus pleas, and intervention applications. All matters are before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, who are reviewing compliance with the Court’s Oct. 9 directions on public-transport restrictions.
Challenges to transport curbs
One petition, MA Baby v. Union of India, contests the limitation on Delhi Metro and railway services, arguing that the Oct. 9 order allowed regulation but not a total shutdown of public transport.
Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi filed a contempt petition alleging that the closure of Metro stations breached the same directive. The Court has issued notices to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar, and DMRC Chairperson D Thara after finding a prima facie case of contempt.
Allegations of police excesses
Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy filed a habeas corpus plea on behalf of several detained political leaders, including former chief ministers, seeking judicial intervention against their arrest.
Advocate Aman Prasad has moved the Supreme Court seeking contempt of court action against Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar over alleged excessive use of force against protesters, including women and lawyers, during the Delhi protests. The petition alleges violation of the Supreme Court’s earlier directions concerning police action and public movement.
Journalist Amaan Rastogi, associated with Molitics, has moved the Supreme Court seeking contempt of court action against the Union Home Secretary and Delhi Police Commissioner over alleged police assault while he was covering the protests in Delhi. The petition concerns alleged violation of the Supreme Court’s directions protecting journalists discharging their professional duties.
The Supreme Court Bar Association has asked for a status report on the alleged detention of advocates near the Court on Oct. 10, requesting preservation of CCTV footage and safeguards to ensure unhindered court access.
Similarly, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association seeks an independent, time-bound inquiry into the alleged manhandling of lawyers, identification of involved police officers, and protection against retaliation.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan highlighted a petition questioning the use of Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the powers granted under Section 172, which he says were invoked to curb lawful protest.
The journalists’ group Free Speech Collective filed two separate actions: one demanding contempt proceedings for the forced removal of reporters, and another seeking an independent probe, preservation of evidence, and compensation for alleged police violence.
Another petition from the Network of Women in Media, India, seeks safeguards against arbitrary detention and intimidation of women journalists covering the unrest.
Member of Parliament AA Rahim of the CPI(M) has asked for an inquiry into the alleged illegal detention and custodial assault of Democratic Youth Federation of India members during the Oct. 11 demonstrations.
Professor Apoorvanand Jha alleged that students were assaulted and tortured during the protests, presenting medical reports to the Court and requesting a governmental response to the allegations.
In a separate plea, four lawyers raised concerns about the entry of Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders into the Supreme Court premises on Oct. 12, asking for restrictions on political demonstrations inside the Court.
Advocate Swaty Singh Malik has intervened in the pending contempt proceedings, claiming that four female police officers forcibly detained her, bruised her, and tore a poster bearing the Constitution’s preamble.
While the Court examines these matters, it has also listed the petition by the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, which alleges assault and detention of journalists covering the protests, for a hearing later this week.
Procedural developments before the bench
The three-judge bench has issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, the Police Commissioner, and the chairperson of the metro authority in connection with the alleged breach of earlier directives. The notices request compliance reports and seek clarification on the legal basis for the shutdown of certain transit stations.
Pending reliefs and specific claims
One contempt application alleges that police personnel forcibly removed a poster bearing the Constitution’s preamble from a demonstrator, violating constitutional guarantees of expression and dignity. The filing cites breaches of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 22.
