NEW DELHI: A two-judge special Bench of the Supreme Court on Sunday ordered that no one peacefully participating in a gathering be illegally detained while hearing petitions challenging the Delhi Police crackdown on protesters during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) demonstration in Delhi on October 10.
The Bench, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, accepted the government's assurance that Metro services would be normalised and remain so unless a public order situation arose. It directed the restoration of internet services, unrestricted movement of people and traffic, and said lawyers must not be obstructed from discharging their professional duties.
"Right to movement and protest is a fundamental right," the Bench said, directing Metro and rail services to function normally and internet facilities to remain undisturbed as per law.
The court also directed the removal of barricades across Delhi, allowing people to move freely, subject to public order considerations. It ordered the removal of restrictions under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) outside the Supreme Court to ensure access to justice.
The Bench issued notice to the Centre on a plea filed by lawyer Shailendra Mani Tripathi seeking contempt proceedings against authorities for allegedly violating the court's directions. It also asked the Delhi Police to file a detailed reply by Tuesday.
The court said it would hear all lawyers seeking to mention their pleas. "Two matters are before us. There are lawyers who wish to make an unlisted mention of pleas filed. What we purpose to do is to go from right to left (in the Bar) and give an opportunity to hear every party," it said.
Senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for a petitioner, told the court that young people had taken to lawful protests, a right recognised by the Constitution, because they felt the election system was unfair.
Referring to Article 358, Guruswamy submitted that Article 19 rights could be restricted only when an Emergency was imposed. “So is State saying they have brought in an unimposed Emergency?” she asked. She also referred to the petition’s interim relief and contempt prayers.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the issue did not arise in the M.A. Baby case because the events had taken place only the previous day. He pointed to people being picked up from trains and from areas outside the four-kilometre zone.
Senior advocate Shadan Farasat told the Bench that he and several lawyers had been assaulted the previous day. He clarified that they were not seeking separate rights for lawyers, as they were part of the larger group of citizens.
Farasat described the situation in the capital as “remarkably suppressive”, alleging that people were not allowed to stand on the streets and were being picked up and thrown away. He said he was thrown into a moving bus after being picked up.
Stressing that the issue concerned citizens’ right to protest, rather than the rights of individuals or lawyers, Farasat said, “with all responsibility submitted yesterday we were one step away from a police state.”
He urged the court to restore citizens’ right to protest peacefully in the capital, saying the right had been destroyed the previous day.
