Special Sunday Bench Orders Removal of Section 163 BNSS Boards Near Supreme Court to Ensure Unrestricted Access to Justice
Supreme Court Issues Directions on Peaceful Protests
On October 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India held a rare Sunday hearing concerning police action and public transport restrictions in Delhi. The Supreme Court Protest Directions addressed peaceful demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The Court issued several interim measures to protect citizens’ rights and restore normal public services.
A Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard concerns about police restrictions across the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
The Bench directed authorities not to detain individuals who assemble peacefully without arms outside areas covered by Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). However, authorities may act when they strictly follow the procedures established by law.
Furthermore, the Court addressed restrictions near its premises. It instructed police to immediately remove signboards announcing Section 163 BNSS restrictions near the Supreme Court, if they had not already done so.
The Bench emphasized that litigants and advocates must have unrestricted access to courts of law.
Court Directs Restoration of Metro and Railway Services
The Supreme Court also examined disruptions to public transportation across Delhi.
First, the Bench directed the Delhi Metro and Indian Railways to maintain normal operations. Authorities must avoid outright closures unless genuine public order concerns justify necessary and proportionate restrictions.
Moreover, the Court referred to Article 19(2) of the Constitution while addressing permissible restrictions.
The Bench stressed that public safety measures must not unnecessarily interfere with citizens’ movement.
Supreme Court Orders Review of Police Barricades
The Court also addressed widespread traffic disruptions caused by police barricades.
It directed authorities to allow citizens to move freely across Delhi, subject to ordinary traffic regulations.
Additionally, the Bench ordered an immediate review of barricades along major transit corridors.
The review aims to reduce traffic congestion and prevent unnecessary hardship for commuters.
Consequently, authorities must balance public order requirements with citizens’ freedom of movement.
Court Directs Authorities to Maintain Internet Access
The Bench also examined concerns about interruptions to internet services.
It directed authorities to maintain uninterrupted internet communication across the capital.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi clarified that statutory powers under the Information Technology Act remain available.
However, authorities should not arbitrarily impose blanket internet shutdowns against peaceful citizens.
The Court therefore emphasized the importance of proportionate restrictions when authorities address genuine security concerns.
Solicitor General Assures Restoration of Services
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that Delhi Metro had resumed full operations.
According to his assurance, all metro stations reopened at 10:00 PM on October 10, 2026.
He also stated that trains were operating normally and authorities had completely restored internet services.
The Bench took his solemn assurance on record.
Senior Advocates Raise Concerns Over Police Action
Several senior advocates presented allegations of excessive police action during the October 10 demonstrations.
Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and opposition parties had organized the protests.
The advocates highlighted alleged arbitrary detentions, physical violence, and restrictions on public movement.
Kapil Sibal Questions Detentions and Metro Closures
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing RJD MP Manoj Jha, raised concerns about police conduct.
He alleged that officers arbitrarily detained commuters arriving at railway stations.
According to Sibal, police also detained citizens beyond the four-kilometre radius of Jantar Mantar, where authorities had imposed Section 163 BNSS.
Furthermore, he submitted that 45 metro stations remained closed despite the Court’s October 9 order.
Shadan Farasat Recounts Alleged Police Assault
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat described his experience during the October 10 demonstration.
He alleged that police personnel assaulted him and forced him into a moving bus.
Farasat expressed serious concerns about restrictions on peaceful demonstrations.
He also warned that the police response threatened citizens’ constitutional right to protest.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan Highlights Restrictions Near Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan presented video screenshots showing Section 163 BNSS signboards outside the Supreme Court gates.
He argued that these restrictions interfered with access to justice.
Additionally, he criticized alleged physical violence against unarmed protesters and students.
He urged the Court to examine the conduct of officials responsible for public transport shutdowns.
N. Hariharan Raises Concerns About Lawyers’ Movement
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan also highlighted restrictions affecting legal professionals.
He submitted that extensive police cordoning prevented practising lawyers from moving freely across Delhi.
Consequently, advocates faced difficulties reaching courts and carrying out their professional responsibilities.
Supreme Court Issues Notice on Contempt Petition
The Bench issued formal notice to the alleged contemnors in the pending proceedings.
They include:
- Govind Mohan, Union Home Secretary
- Anurag Kumar, Delhi Police Commissioner
- D. Thara, DMRC Chairperson
The Court directed these officials to file affidavits and comprehensive compliance reports.
The reports must explain how authorities implemented the Court’s directions.
Furthermore, the Bench ordered the consolidation of other petitions mentioned during the Sunday hearing with the pending contempt proceedings.
The matter concerns Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Govind Mohan.
Supreme Court Emphasizes Constitutional Rights and Public Access
The Supreme Court Protest Directions focus on protecting peaceful assembly, public movement, and access to essential services.
The Bench also stressed that authorities must preserve access to courts while maintaining public order.
Moreover, its directions require officials to review restrictions that unnecessarily disrupt daily life.
The Court’s interim measures seek to ensure that law enforcement actions remain consistent with legal procedures and constitutional protections.
The pending contempt proceedings will examine compliance with these directions.
