Delhi CJP Protests: Supreme Court says no to complete closure of Delhi metro or total blockade of roads

The Supreme Court on Friday ordered that there should not be complete closure of Delhi metro trains on October 10.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took objection to the proposed closure of metro stations in Delhi, a measure sought to be undertaken by authorities in Delhi to prevent protests from reaching the national capital on October 10 for the Cockroach Janta Party-led protests.

The bench said that en entire city cannot he shut down citing protests and such drastic measures will cause great hardships to ordinary citizens.

Thus, the Court recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's submission that he will impress upon authorities to reconsider the prohibition and allow the movement of metro trains and other railway services in a suitably regulated manner, so that no inconvenience is caused to the residents of Delhi and the public at large.

There shall not be complete prohibition on movement of metro trains, the Court underscored.

"In terms of that assurance, we make it clear that there shall be no complete prohibition on the movement of metro trains. We direct that due publicity be given to the considered decision taken by the authorities regarding the movement of metro trains and other railway services in a suitably regulated manner, so that inconvenience to the public at large is minimised. Such a decision shall be given wide publicity to avoid further inconvenience to commuters," the Court said in its order.

Pertinently, the Court also directed authorities in Delhi to issue a traffic advisory for the benefit of the public travelling within the city by road.

Importantly, the Court also noted that an alternative venue for holding protests in Delhi has to be earmarked. It asked the Central government to examine the issue and take a decision.

"During the course of the hearing, it was suggested that another suitable location, with necessary amenities and facilities for peaceful and lawful protests, may be identified and designated. Let the Government of India consider this suggestion and take an appropriate decision," the order said.

Order in a nutshell

• No complete shutdown of Metro services. Central government agrees to reconsider restrictions and permit regulated operations.

• Train cancellations to be reviewed. Restrictions must be proportionate, not blanket prohibitions.

• Road closures to be revisited. Authorities must ensure public movement and issue traffic advisories.

• Public must be informed. Revised transport decisions and advisories must receive wide publicity.

• Alternative protest venue: Centre asked to consider a designated site with adequate facilities.

The Court was hearing multiple petitions taking objection to closure of 57 Delhi metro stations and cancellation of long distance trains to Delhi.

At the centre of the controversy were two communications - one issued by Joint Commissioner of Police, Transport Range, to the Managing Director, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and another communication dated October 9, issued by the Railways to all zonal railways.

They sought to close Delhi metro stations or cancel trains coming to Delhi.

These restrictions were put in place due to the protests slated to be held in the city on October 10 by various bodies including Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and other youth wings of various political parties demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

"Solicitor...we are mainly concerned about the complete closure of these metro station entries. We have serious concerns about this. Our concern is not with respect to any protesters or any individual. Our concern is about the hundreds and thousands of commuters who come from Gurugram, Greater Noida, East Delhi and South Delhi to Delhi for their livelihood. They are students, employees and senior citizens who travel by public transport. We are speaking on behalf of the common citizens of this city," the Court orally said when the matter was taken up.

While the Court said that law enforcement agencies can take measures to restrict unruly movement, the entire city cannot be brought to a halt over the same. Everybody does not have private cars or other private modes of transport, the bench reminded.

"The law enforcement authorities are certainly entitled to take regulatory measures. There is no doubt about that. If you want to restrict unruly movement, you can do so. But that does not mean you can bring everything to a halt and leave people without any transport facility. Everybody does not have a car. Everybody does not have access to private transport. People depend on public transport. This cannot be done," CJI Kant said.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, said that there is no complete closure of metro but only reduction in frequency of trains.

"The frequency of metro trains passing through the following metro stations may be reduced. It does not talk about complete closure," the SG said.

"The next line is more important," the CJI said.

"I am reading it. Entry and exit at these stations will be closed from 9 a.m. until the situation normalises," the SG said.

"That will be difficult for us to accept. On the one hand, you say that the frequency of metro trains may be reduced. Then you say that from 9 a.m., the stations will be closed until further notice. How?" asked Justice Bagchi.

The CJI pointed out how it will be difficult for people to commute to work if such a measure is adopted.

"Let me give you an illustration. Suppose tomorrow there is court work. Most lawyers have private cars, so they may not face any difficulty. But what about the clerks working here? What about the staff? What about those working in the canteen, mitti cafés and other establishments? We would like you to do something about this immediately. If you apprehend unruly movement, or the involvement of antisocial or anti-national elements, you are entitled to take appropriate preventive measures. You have CCTV cameras at railway stations and metro stations. There are other security measures available to the government. You are entitled to adopt those measures. But ordinary citizens are also entitled to access these stations and use public transport," the CJI said.

"Coming from the Court, I immediately bow down. I will consult the government. The restrictions can be regulated and periodically reviewed depending on how the situation develops," the SG said.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal flagged cancellation of long distance trains and how it will inconvenience commuters.

"It is anticipated that there will be road traffic congestion in the areas around New Delhi Railway Station and Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station on October 10. Therefore, all Mail and Express trains scheduled to reach these stations during the specified hours are to be cancelled at source. This means that a train coming from Kerala cannot reach Delhi if its scheduled arrival falls within those hours. Most trains from Kerala arrive between 11 a.m. and 1:30 p.m," Sibal said.

Senior Advocate N Hariharan also voiced concerns about road traffic being affected by barricading.

"The Court mentioned that lawyers may not face difficulties because they have cars. But where are the roads on which we can drive? Roads have been barricaded. We are being prevented from moving from one part of the city to another. How are we supposed to overcome this? There is complete barricading," he said.

The CJI stressed on the doctrine of proportionality.

"One very important principle that we follow for every citizen is the principle of proportionality. You have to prevent certain things. Take measures only to the extent necessary to prevent them. But that does not mean you should use a hammer to kill a fly. That principle must be kept in mind," the CJI said.

The SG said that it must not be reported tomorrow that the Court said government is using hammer to kill a fly.

"That is what the Court has said by way of an example. It should not be reported that the Chief Justice of India said the government is using a hammer to kill a fly," the SG said.

The Court maintained that while authorities can exercise caution, it cannot affect other citizens and the state has the sovereign duty to protect people.

"Exercise caution. Exercise an abundance of caution. There is nothing wrong with that. You are responsible for maintaining law and order. But that responsibility is not merely about protecting State property. It is about protecting people. That is your sovereign duty. There are our daughters, young children, senior citizens, very elderly people and patients who travel through these places. They also need to be protected. There is absolutely no difficulty with taking appropriate measures. But make sure that everything is not brought to a halt," the CJI remarked.

He also said that besides trains and metros, closure of roads also needs to be revisited.

"See which areas need to be regulated and which areas need not be regulated. There should be a free flow of traffic," the CJI underscored.

Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan flagged a video where Delhi Police was seen going to a mosque and asking persons assembled there not to take part in the protests.

"The Delhi Police have been going from mosque to mosque since yesterday. We have stated this on oath. There is also a photograph on page 13 and a video. They cannot intimidate citizens like this. If a citizen participates in a demonstration and violates the law, the law can take its course," the Counsel said.

"This is more of an instigation than seeking justice," SG Mehta said.

"I thought you were not interrupting. I thought you were not interrupting," Sankaranarayanan replied.

The Court maintained that it cannot comment on the allegation without hearing the other side.

"We cannot comment on these allegations unless the matter comes before us and we call upon the authorities to respond. We would like to hear them as well. Without hearing them, it is difficult for us to comment on why they went there and whether they should have gone there. There may be justifiable reasons," CJI Kant said.

"We will come back to the Court on this," Sibal said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that the permission for the previous protests was only for one day but the protestors ended up occupying Jantar Mantar for 17 days.

"On June 20, the organisers of the present protest sought permission from the police. Permission was granted that very day. I will place that permission on record. The organiser also gave a written undertaking that the protest site would be vacated after the permitted period. Permission was granted for only one day, from 10 a.m. to around 4 or 5 p.m. But the protest continued for 17 days. During this period, there were several violations of the conditions and guidelines. I am not going into those details," he said.

He further alleged how previous protests by CJP had led to unlawful activities and eventually a march to the parliament had turned violent.

"They also started a protest march in a restricted area near the Parliament building. The protesters tried to reach Parliament. I am making this submission with a sense of responsibility. Parliament is not merely a political building. It is a symbol of the sovereignty of this nation. Nobody can enter Parliament without permission. Thereafter, the Court is aware of what happened. I do not wish to reopen wounds which may or may not have healed. But more than 200 police personnel were injured. Some private individuals were also injured. While protecting the rights of protesters is our responsibility, we also have a responsibility towards the rest of the population," SG Mehta said.

He also opposed claims that the entire city is being paralysed.

"The impression being created today is that the entire city has been paralysed and internet services have been shut down everywhere. I have taken instructions. The internet restrictions are confined to the area around Rashtrapati Bhavan, Raisina Road, and a radius of approximately four kilometres. These restrictions are reviewed, relaxed or imposed depending on the situation. These are proportionate measures recognised by judgments of this Court," the SG argued.

He also flagged certain videos from some events this week.

"I would request the Court to examine some of the video clips from the events of the day before yesterday. We will place them on record. Women police officers were molested, attacked and injured. The Court may examine any video of its choice to see the exemplary restraint shown by the police. They were subjected to abuses involving their mothers and sisters, but they did not retaliate. Keeping all these circumstances in mind, the earlier protest was unlawful because permission had not been granted for its continuation. The present protest is also not permitted," Mehta contended.

"What about election rallies? Are such restrictions imposed during election rallies, when people come out in large numbers? Are these measures taken during other protests? I really cannot understand what is being said. Political rallies bring hundreds and thousands of people into this city, but nobody seems bothered about that," Senior Advocate N Hariharan said.

[Read Live Coverage]