Following its urgent intervention when the Supreme Court held a special Sunday sitting to hear pleas against the detention of opposition leaders, the top court has now taken up a massive batch of fresh petitions challenging the wider crackdown across the national capital.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is scheduled to examine serious legal questions arising from the recent demonstrations. These include allegations of widespread police excesses, the detention of lawyers and journalists, contempt of previous court directions, and a direct constitutional challenge to powers under the new criminal procedural law.
Alongside the protest-related cases, the bench is also scheduled to take up a high-profile challenge filed by Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and other INDIA bloc leaders against the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
The Protests and the Fallout in the Capital
The protests began in connection with demonstrations against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, initially organized around October 10. In response, authorities placed heavy restrictions across central Delhi, including curbs on metro services, road closures, and mobile internet suspensions.
Several opposition leaders, students, and citizens took to the streets, leading to clashes with law enforcement, mass detentions, and barricading of public movement. Matters escalated further on October 12 when opposition leaders marched toward the Supreme Court registry to file their petition against the voter revision exercise, resulting in a large gathering outside the court complex.
Now, multiple groups have moved the Supreme Court seeking accountability for what they describe as an arbitrary and disproportionate state response.
Contempt Pleas Over Metro Curbs and Detentions
The court had previously intervened on October 9, directing authorities to regulate public transport sensibly rather than impose blanket bans that paralyze ordinary commuters. However, contempt petitions allege that Delhi authorities openly ignored these directions by continuing to shut down metro stations and disrupt rail movement.
On October 11, the Supreme Court issued a notice on a contempt plea moved by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi. At that time, the court made it clear that professionals like advocates and journalists must not be prevented from doing their jobs. It also ruled that peaceful, unarmed assemblies outside areas under prohibitory orders should not face detention.
Despite those orders, fresh petitions allege that police continued to detain individuals unlawfully. Journalist Amaan Rastogi has also filed a contempt petition, stating he was detained while reporting on the ground despite clear judicial protections.
Lawyers and Journalists Demand Protection
The legal and media fraternities have turned petitioners before the country’s highest court. Both the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) have voiced alarm over advocates being manhandled and detained by the Delhi Police.
The SCBA has sought complete disclosure of detained advocates, the names of involved police officers, and the immediate preservation of official records. Similarly, SCAORA has asked for an independent, time-bound inquiry into the October 10 incidents to ensure advocates can access courts without police intimidation.
Media associations have raised matching concerns. Bodies such as the Free Speech Collective, the Network of Women in Media, India, and the Delhi Union of Journalists have pointed out that reporters were assaulted, forcibly dragged away, and had their phones and cameras confiscated. In response to these claims, the court recently summoned a senior Delhi Police officer to explain alleged assaults on female journalists.
What The Law Says: Challenging Section 172 BNSS
One of the central legal issues before the bench is a direct constitutional challenge to Section 172 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Under the new criminal code, this provision deals with preventive police action to prevent cognizable offences.
A petition filed by student Samriddhi Das contends that Section 172 of the BNSS gives the police unchecked, arbitrary authority to detain citizens without adequate procedural safeguards. The plea argues that using broad preventive powers against peaceful demonstrators violates fundamental rights protected under the Indian Constitution:
- Article 14: The right to equality and protection against arbitrary state action.
- Article 19: The core freedoms of speech, expression, and peaceful assembly without arms.
- Article 21: The right to personal liberty and due process of law.
The challenge asks the Supreme Court to lay down strict, binding guidelines so that preventive detention powers cannot be turned into tools to crush legitimate public dissent.
Internet Shutdowns and Habeas Corpus Petitions
The bench will also examine how communication blackouts were deployed during the unrest. Advocate Narendra Kumar Goswami has challenged the suspension of mobile internet within a four-kilometer radius of the Janpath–Kartavya Path junction.
The petition calls for the production of the suspension orders and review committee reports to test whether the shutdown satisfied legal standards of necessity and proportionality. Rajya Sabha MP Professor Manoj Kumar Jha has similarly questioned the use of phone jammers and alleged excessive force and sexual harassment against women protesters.
Additionally, Senior Advocate and MP Menaka Guruswamy has filed a habeas corpus petition. A writ of habeas corpus translates literally to “produce the body” and is a constitutional remedy used to challenge illegal custody. Her plea challenges the detention and house arrest of several prominent political leaders during the crackdown.
The ECI Voter Roll Revision Challenge
Running alongside the protest cases is the petition filed by Rahul Gandhi and nine other INDIA bloc leaders. Their plea targets the Election Commission of India’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process.
The leaders allege serious discrepancies in how electoral rolls are being revised, raising alarms over arbitrary deletions of genuine voters. They have asked the Supreme Court to order full disclosure of the commission’s internal files and direct an independent audit mechanism to protect voter roll transparency.
Why This Matters For You
This batch of cases goes far beyond political friction. At its heart, it tests whether the state can use blanket public transport shutdowns, mobile internet blackouts, and preventive detention under the BNSS to silence peaceful public assembly.
For ordinary citizens, the Supreme Court’s ruling could establish crucial safeguards protecting your right to assemble peacefully, travel without arbitrary barriers, and cast your vote on a fair electoral roll.
Story reported by Supreme Court – High Court – Legal Breaking News | Live Law India. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
