Supreme Court Contempt Petition Over Delhi Metro, Railway Restrictions Names Home Secretary and Police Chief

A contempt petition has been filed in the Supreme Court over restrictions imposed on Delhi Metro and railway services ahead of a planned protest in the national capital, with the Union Home Secretary and Delhi Police Commissioner named in the plea. The petition alleges that the restrictions violated the Supreme Court’s October 9 directions concerning the operation of public transport. The development follows the court’s concerns over measures that could disrupt the movement of commuters across Delhi.

Authorities had planned to close 57 Delhi Metro stations ahead of the protest scheduled for October 10. Restrictions on railway services, including the cancellation of certain trains arriving at New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin stations, also raised concerns about inconvenience to passengers. During the October 9 hearing, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, questioned the need for sweeping restrictions on public transport. The court indicated that security concerns could be addressed through appropriate arrangements without bringing essential services to a complete halt.

The proposed protest was linked to demands for the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. In preparation for the demonstration, authorities considered measures to manage crowds and prevent potential law-and-order problems. The Supreme Court’s observations highlighted the need to balance public safety with the interests of commuters who rely on metro and railway services for their daily travel. Restrictions on major transport networks can affect office workers, students, patients and passengers travelling from neighbouring cities.

The contempt petition seeks judicial scrutiny of the alleged non-compliance with the court’s directions. However, the filing of a petition does not establish that contempt has occurred. The allegations must be examined through the legal process, and any determination of responsibility rests with the court. The case raises broader questions about the extent to which public transport can be restricted during demonstrations and the need for security measures to remain proportionate to the risks involved. Further proceedings are expected to clarify the court’s position on the restrictions and whether any additional directions will be issued to the authorities.

Disclaimer: This image is taken from Reuters.