Full Breakdown
Delhi Police and Home Secretary Apologize in Supreme Court Contempt Case Over Oct 10 Protest Restrictions
By Drooid · · How we work
The Supreme Court Hearing and the Core Dispute
The Supreme Court is hearing a contempt petition alleging the Centre breached its Oct 9 direction that there be no “complete prohibition” on Delhi Metro and train services during the Oct 10 demonstration by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). In affidavits, Delhi Police Commissioner Anurag Kumar and Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan offered “unconditional and unqualified” apologies while defending the metro curbs, a one-day suspension of cellular internet and the preventive detention of participants. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi has issued notices and scheduled further arguments.
Background & Context
The CJP’s Oct 10 protest followed a July 20 march that turned violent, with police reporting injuries to more than 240 officers and a crowd that swelled to about 30,000 despite a permitted capacity of 1,000. Authorities cited that episode and rallies on Oct 6-8 as justification for preventive steps under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Similar prohibitory orders around Parliament and Jantar Mantar have previously been examined by the Court (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, 2018).
Official Statements & Responses
- Anurag Kumar (affidavit) said the measures were “timely, proportionate and lawful,” noting restrictions at 45 of Delhi’s 303 metro stations (? 15 %) and full services resuming at 10 p.m. on Oct 10. Detainees were held in makeshift centres for two to six hours and provided meals.
- Govind Mohan (affidavit) explained the cellular-internet suspension was “in accordance with law” and proportionate, covering a 4 km radius of Raisina Hill from 10 p.m. on Oct 9 to 10 p.m. on Oct 10; Wi-Fi and broadband were unaffected. He asked the court to modify the Oct 11 order to permit such suspensions when necessary.
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the apology was procedural and did not preclude a defence of the actions.
- The bench observed a “prima facie” case and directed respondents to file compliance reports by Oct 13.
Data & Statistics
- Delhi Metro: 303 stations; restrictions at 45 stations (? 15 %).
- Injuries on July 20: police claim > 240 officers injured, including more than a dozen women.
- Protest size on July 20: organizers permitted 1,000 participants; police estimate > 30,000 gathered.
- Internet suspension: cellular services only, 4 km radius of Raisina Hill, 24-hour period from Oct 9 p.m. to Oct 10 p.m.
Criticism & Opposition
Advocate Brajesh Singh filed a letter on Oct 12 seeking the Attorney General’s consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Commissioner Kumar, arguing the actions constitute “calculated, high-handed defiance” of the court’s directives.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The police affidavit says detainees were released after two to six hours; the advocate’s letter alleges illegal detention of journalists and professionals. The Court has noted a prima facie case but has not ruled on the factual dispute.
- Police describe the 15 % curtailment as necessary; critics contend it amounts to a prohibited “complete prohibition.”
What’s Next
The Supreme Court has set a deadline of Oct 13 for the Centre and Delhi Police to submit compliance affidavits. Further hearings are scheduled, and the bench may decide whether the alleged journalist and professional detentions rise to criminal contempt.