The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday called upon the organisers of the proposed October 10 protests in the national capital to appear before it at 2 pm, seeking to balance the right to peaceful assembly with the disruption of essential services caused by sweeping security restrictions across the national capital.

An SC bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi as well as V Mohana sought details of the planned stirs, including the expected turnout and duration, amid rising concerns over the proposed closure of 57 Metro stations and other curbs affecting residents.

Top court seeks details of proposed protest

The Bench underlined that it needed to hear the organisers before deciding whether the agitation could be regulated without causing disproportionate hardship to the general public. The judges asked, “We can injunct them and at the same time, we can injunct the protest. Will it be fair?” emphasising the need to consider both sides of the dispute.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Mariam Alexander Baby, contended that railway stations, metro stations and other public facilities were facing restrictions, while hostels had reportedly been asked not to accept fresh bookings for October 10.

Calling the proposed gathering ‘peaceful,’ Sibal questioned the need for measures of such intensity. Another advocate Prashant Bhushan said, “The whole of Delhi has been shut down.”

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan also slammed the curbs imposed, contending that an entire city’s shutdown was unjustified because authorities were unable to manage a peaceful protest. He further pointed out that the Delhi High Court (HC) had deferred a petition concerning the same until Monday, potentially leaving no room for meaningful relief.

Union Govt defends security measures

Representing the Union government and Delhi Police, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the curbs, arguing that they were aimed at preventing unlawful activities and that an initially peaceful gathering could spiral into an unlawful, haphazard one.

Sibal, however, countered that authorities could take appropriate action if violence ensued, rather than impose extensive restrictions in anticipation of possible disorder. Furthermore, the Bench underscored that the right to protest must be exercised within the framework of existing laws and permissions. It noted that citizens could assert their right to demonstrate even without authorisation, but would remain liable to prosecution in accordance with the law.

The judges further emphasised that protestors’ rights must be balanced against the interests of ordinary residents affected by restrictions on public and transport services.

Jantar Mantar agitation triggers legal battle

The dispute stemmed from a proposed demonstration by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and student organisations at Jantar Mantar, whose objective was to demand the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar over alleged irregularities in the revision of electoral rolls. The EC and the BJP have, however, shunned allegations of wrongdoing.

Delhi Police have asked the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) to mull closing entry and exit gates at 57 stations from 9 pm on Friday and slashing frequencies of metro trains, citing concerns over crowd movement towards sensitive locations.

In a parallel development, the Indian Youth Congress (IYC) challenged the rejection of its request to hold a peaceful sit-in involving around 100-150 people at Jantar Mantar. Delhi Police rejected the application on October 1.

Moreover, the Delhi HC declined to hear the petition on an urgent basis on Friday and listed it for Monday, prompting lawyers to knock on the doors of the SC. The Apex court indicated that the HC could be asked to hear the pending case on Friday noon instead. Sibal agreed to return at 2 pm with further details of the proposed demonstration as the Bench sought a workable balance between the right to protest and the wider public interest.