Supreme Court: Hears Petitions On Delhi Metro Closure Amid Protests

• The Supreme Court received urgent petitions regarding the closure of Delhi metro stations and cancellation of trains ahead of planned protests.
• Opposition parties and youth organizations called for protests demanding the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.
• Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Prashant Bhushan, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan detailed widespread restrictions, including the closure of 57 metro stations.
• The Delhi High Court had previously declined an urgent hearing on a similar petition filed by the Indian Youth Congress.
• The Supreme Court bench, including CJI Surya Kant, heard the initial mention of these petitions seeking immediate intervention.

The Supreme Court's handling of these petitions, particularly those concerning the Delhi metro petition and broader protest restrictions, will be closely watched.

The Supreme Court of India has been approached with urgent petitions concerning significant disruptions to public movement in Delhi, including the closure of numerous metro stations and the cancellation of long-distance trains. These measures were reportedly implemented ahead of planned protests by various opposition parties and youth organizations. The demonstrations are organized to demand the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, heard the initial mention of these petitions. The petitioners sought immediate judicial intervention, highlighting the widespread impact of the restrictions on citizens' ability to travel and assemble. The court's engagement underscores the gravity of the allegations regarding the pre-emptive curtailment of public access and transportation in the capital.

During the Supreme Court proceedings, senior legal counsel presented a stark picture of the restrictions imposed across Delhi. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing MA Baby, articulated concerns over what he described as a virtual shutdown, stating that all trains were cancelled, metro stations were closed, and movement was severely hampered. He further alleged that hotels were inaccessible, the Nizamuddin area was shut, and Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) were being instructed to prevent residents from leaving their homes. Sibal questioned the legality and justification of such extensive measures against a peaceful protest, emphasizing citizens' rights in their own country.

Adding to these accounts, Advocate Prashant Bhushan informed the court that the entire city of Delhi had been effectively shut down. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan provided a specific figure, alleging that 57 metro stations had been closed. Chief Justice Kant noted that the situation described by the lawyers was not apparent when the bench arrived that morning, indicating the rapid or recent nature of the alleged restrictions.

The Supreme Court's attention to these petitions follows a related development in the Delhi High Court. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal informed the Supreme Court that the Indian Youth Congress had previously filed a petition in the Delhi High Court concerning similar issues. However, the High Court declined to grant an urgent hearing, scheduling the matter for Monday instead. Sibal expressed concern about the potential for conflicting judicial messages arising from the different approaches taken by the High Court and the Supreme Court on such a pressing matter.

This situation highlights the ongoing tension between maintaining public order and safeguarding the fundamental right to protest in India. The Supreme Court's handling of these petitions, particularly those concerning the Delhi metro petition and broader protest restrictions, will be closely watched. The outcome could establish significant precedents for how authorities manage public assemblies and how courts balance state security concerns with citizens' constitutional freedoms of movement and expression.

Lawyers advising on fundamental rights, public assembly, or challenging government restrictions on movement should monitor the Supreme Court's handling of these petitions, as the outcome could establish precedents for balancing public order with citizens' right to protest and freedom of movement.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets