The Supreme Court on Friday questioned the sweeping restrictions imposed in Delhi ahead of a planned protest, expressing concern over the closure of 57 Metro stations and the cancellation of trains to New Delhi and Hazrat Nizamuddin railway stations. The court stated that law and order measures must be proportionate and made it clear that there cannot be a complete prohibition on public transport.
Hearing a petition against the suspension of train and Metro services before protests called by the Cockroach Janta Party and opposition parties seeking the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked the Centre to ensure that normal life is not brought to a halt.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was told by the bench that it was concerned about the closure of Metro stations from 9 pm on Friday until further orders alongside the cancellation of main and express trains. Chief Justice Kant noted that the fundamental principle for every citizen is proportionality, requiring authorities to take measures only to the extent necessary without using extreme measures.
Mehta responded that he understood the court's concerns and would discuss the matter with relevant authorities, while urging that the Chief Justice's remark not be misconstrued. The bench stressed that authorities carry a sovereign duty to protect the public, including students, senior citizens, workers, and patients who rely heavily on public transportation for their daily livelihoods.
The judges clarified that while law enforcement agencies are entitled to take regulatory measures to restrict unruly movement, bringing everything to a standstill leaves ordinary commuters without any transport options. Justice Bagchi suggested that reducing the frequency of services could be a regulatory step, whereas shutting them down completely is an extreme action.
Mehta disputed claims that the entire city had been shut down, explaining that authorities implemented necessary precautions following violence during a previous parliament march attempt in July. He also noted that internet suspensions were restricted to sensitive pockets near the President's House and would be reviewed based on security developments.
The bench confined its immediate focus to transport infrastructure since the organizing parties were not present. Additionally, the court asked the Centre to consider designating an appropriate site with basic amenities for peaceful and lawful protests in place of Jantar Mantar, reinforcing that public movement can be regulated but not entirely prohibited.