SC mandates free movement, no illegal detentions, ‘subject to public order’

A day after mass detentions and a “curfew-like” clampdown on civil rights, which senior lawyers compared to the 1975 Emergency, the Supreme Court convened what it called an “extraordinary, exceptional” Sunday hearing to direct the Union government and the Delhi Police to allow free and smooth movement of people and traffic, as well as the operations of Metro and rail services, but “subject to law and public order”.

A Special Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana issued notice to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) chairperson D. Thara on petitions seeking contempt action against them for allegedly violating an October 9 order which barred any “outright prohibition on the movement of Metro trains” and public transport on October 10.

The court ordered the police to forthwith review the imposition of barricades from public roads, ensure that Internet connectivity was not disturbed, and lift prohibitory orders issued under Section 163 BNSS in and around the Supreme Court and other courts of law in the capital to facilitate litigants’ access lawyers and justice.

Justice Bagchi, dictating the order, observed there would be no detentions except by law, particularly outside the four-km prohibitory zone in central Delhi, which includes Jantar Mantar, the designated site for protests. The court said people should be allowed to assemble peacefully outside the restricted zone. All people, including journalists and lawyers, must be allowed to perform their professional duties, the court directed.

The court’s repeated emphasis on the “subject to law and order” rider signalled a deliberate balancing act of upholding constitutional protections against illegal detention and securing rights to free movement, access to courts and Internet connectivity, while preserving the State’s power to enforce reasonable restrictions to maintain public order.

Crowded courtroom 

The morning began with the Bench changing courtrooms at the last moment, before 10.30 a.m., due to overcrowding. The video-conferencing link was not operational due to a “glitch” and was later found to be chock-a-block with viewers. The build-up to the hearing was punctuated by verbal confrontations over seating arrangements for senior police officers present in the courtroom. One of the lawyers, who had been detained on October 10, urged his colleagues to offer the women police officers seats, saying, “They are our guests”.