SIR protests: No illegal detention of those gathering peacefully, says Supreme Court
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal sought relief against restrictions that allegedly prevented people from reaching Delhi and the designated protest site at Jantar Mantar.
- Oct 11, 2026,
- Updated Oct 11, 2026 2:16 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Sunday directed authorities to ensure that people gathering peacefully are not illegally detained, stressing that any detention must follow the procedure established by law. The order came amid allegations of police excesses and illegal detentions during protests in Delhi demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the SIR process.
The court said peaceful protesters cannot be illegally detained except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly in areas beyond those covered by prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also directed that Metro and rail services function normally unless restrictions are necessary to maintain public order. It said internet services should remain undisturbed in accordance with the law and ordered authorities to permit the free movement of people and traffic, subject to lawful restrictions and traffic requirements.
The Supreme Court also issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, Delhi Police Commissioner and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) in contempt proceedings over alleged violations of its earlier orders concerning restrictions on transport services amid the protests.
The court further directed the authorities to remove notices announcing the imposition of Section 163 restrictions in and around the Supreme Court premises, if they had not already been removed. It said lawyers must not be obstructed from discharging their professional duties.
Don't Miss: SIR protest special hearing: SC directs Delhi barricades removed, internet restored
The special Sunday hearing followed petitions challenging police action during Saturday’s protests, including alleged detentions of political leaders, lawyers, journalists and ordinary citizens. The pleas also raised allegations of assaults on advocates and mediapersons, restrictions on internet services and the closure of 45 Metro stations.
COURT QUESTIONS RESTRICTIONS ON MOVEMENT
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal sought relief against restrictions that allegedly prevented people from reaching Delhi and the designated protest site at Jantar Mantar. He also raised concerns over the disruption of train services and the closure of Metro stations, arguing that citizens should be allowed to exercise their right to peaceful protest subject to lawful restrictions.
The bench asked the authorities to review the barricades in view of law-and-order and traffic requirements. It also sought a map from the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation showing the stations that had been closed and those that remained operational.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that all Metro stations had reopened by 10 pm on Saturday and that internet services had been restored. The court said Metro and rail services should operate normally unless restrictions were required to address a public-order situation.
Must Read: CJP protebhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das & Ashutosh Ranka released by Executive Magistrate courtst: A
PETITIONS ALLEGE ILLEGAL DETENTIONS, POLICE EXCESSES
Several petitions brought before the court raised concerns over the legality and extent of police restrictions. One plea alleged that the authorities had violated an earlier Supreme Court order against a complete prohibition on Metro and rail services into Delhi. Other petitioners challenged the alleged preventive detention of political leaders and lawyers and the use of force against advocates and mediapersons.
The bench said the government would have to respond to allegations of illegal detentions, excessive force and violations of statutory duties. Questions were also raised over the imposition of Section 163 restrictions outside the Supreme Court premises and whether those affected had been adequately informed.
The court will hear the matters again on Tuesday, when the government is expected to respond to the allegations.
The Supreme Court on Sunday directed authorities to ensure that people gathering peacefully are not illegally detained, stressing that any detention must follow the procedure established by law. The order came amid allegations of police excesses and illegal detentions during protests in Delhi demanding Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation over alleged irregularities in the SIR process.
The court said peaceful protesters cannot be illegally detained except in accordance with the procedure established by law, particularly in areas beyond those covered by prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also directed that Metro and rail services function normally unless restrictions are necessary to maintain public order. It said internet services should remain undisturbed in accordance with the law and ordered authorities to permit the free movement of people and traffic, subject to lawful restrictions and traffic requirements.
The Supreme Court also issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, Delhi Police Commissioner and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) in contempt proceedings over alleged violations of its earlier orders concerning restrictions on transport services amid the protests.
The court further directed the authorities to remove notices announcing the imposition of Section 163 restrictions in and around the Supreme Court premises, if they had not already been removed. It said lawyers must not be obstructed from discharging their professional duties.
Don't Miss: SIR protest special hearing: SC directs Delhi barricades removed, internet restored
The special Sunday hearing followed petitions challenging police action during Saturday’s protests, including alleged detentions of political leaders, lawyers, journalists and ordinary citizens. The pleas also raised allegations of assaults on advocates and mediapersons, restrictions on internet services and the closure of 45 Metro stations.
COURT QUESTIONS RESTRICTIONS ON MOVEMENT
During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal sought relief against restrictions that allegedly prevented people from reaching Delhi and the designated protest site at Jantar Mantar. He also raised concerns over the disruption of train services and the closure of Metro stations, arguing that citizens should be allowed to exercise their right to peaceful protest subject to lawful restrictions.
The bench asked the authorities to review the barricades in view of law-and-order and traffic requirements. It also sought a map from the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation showing the stations that had been closed and those that remained operational.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that all Metro stations had reopened by 10 pm on Saturday and that internet services had been restored. The court said Metro and rail services should operate normally unless restrictions were required to address a public-order situation.
Must Read: CJP protebhijeet Dipke, Saurav Das & Ashutosh Ranka released by Executive Magistrate courtst: A
PETITIONS ALLEGE ILLEGAL DETENTIONS, POLICE EXCESSES
Several petitions brought before the court raised concerns over the legality and extent of police restrictions. One plea alleged that the authorities had violated an earlier Supreme Court order against a complete prohibition on Metro and rail services into Delhi. Other petitioners challenged the alleged preventive detention of political leaders and lawyers and the use of force against advocates and mediapersons.
The bench said the government would have to respond to allegations of illegal detentions, excessive force and violations of statutory duties. Questions were also raised over the imposition of Section 163 restrictions outside the Supreme Court premises and whether those affected had been adequately informed.
The court will hear the matters again on Tuesday, when the government is expected to respond to the allegations.