SC seeks response on illegal detentions, police excesses during protests
What's the story
The Supreme Court has asked the government to respond to allegations of illegal detentions and police excesses during protests in Delhi. The protests were demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar. The court also directed authorities to review barricading measures across the city, emphasizing that peaceful protesters should only be dealt with as per law.
Legal proceedings
Solicitor General disputes claims of mass detentions
A special bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took up petitions alleging mass detentions and police excesses.
The court directed authorities to file affidavits in response to these allegations.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta disputed the claims, saying metro services were normal with some restrictions at select stations.
The bench asked for details on affected stations and scheduled a hearing for October 13.
Access to justice
Court orders removal of prohibitory restrictions around Supreme Court
The court also ordered the removal of prohibitory restrictions around the Supreme Court complex to ensure access to justice.
This came after Friday's intervention against public transport restrictions ahead of protests by the Cockroach Janata Party and other groups.
The court noted allegations that its previous order had been violated, with reports of inaccessible metro stations and detentions beyond prohibited areas.
Rights protection
Court stresses duty to protect fundamental rights of all individuals
The court stressed its duty to protect the fundamental rights of all individuals, regardless of their identity.
Senior advocates raised concerns over police excesses and illegal detentions during Saturday's crackdown on protesters.
The petitions also challenged preventive detention of Opposition leaders and questioned the legality of restrictions imposed under Section 163 BNSS around the Supreme Court complex.
Compliance request
Compliance reports sought on metro and rail services
The court asked authorities to submit compliance reports regarding regulated metro and rail services. It also sought information about railway advisories issued during this period.
The bench directed authorities to satisfy the court on three aspects of detention: circumstances of detention, manner of detentions carried out, and justification for such actions.
Legal framework
Right to protest subject to legal restrictions under Article 19(2)
The court reiterated that the right to protest is subject to legal restrictions under Article 19(2). It emphasized that restrictions should not amount to prohibitions.
Senior advocate Guruswamy argued that thousands of peaceful protesters were detained, suspending citizens' rights.
She urged the court not to repeat mistakes from past periods of emergency rule and sought contempt action against officials disobeying earlier directions.